posted on May 20, 2005 12:27:35 AM new
Bush is Wrong -- Filibuster is an Integral Part of Country's History
BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT
News from the offices of Sen. Harry Reid:
REID FLOOR SPEECH ON USE OF FILIBUSTER
Mr. President, yesterday morning I spoke here about a statement the Majority Leader issued calling the filibuster a "procedural gimmick."
The Websters dictionary defines "gimmick" as -- "an ingenious new scheme or angle." No Mr. President, the filibuster is not a scheme. And it is not new.
The filibuster is far from a "procedural gimmick." It is part of the fabric of this institution. It was well known in colonial legislatures, and it is an integral part of our country’s 217 years of history.
The first filibuster in the U.S. Congress happened in 1790. It was used by lawmakers from Virginia and South Carolina who were trying to prevent Philadelphia from hosting the first Congress.
Since 1790, the filibuster has been employed hundreds and hundreds of times.
Senators have used it to stand up to popular presidents. To block legislation. And yes – even to stall executive nominees.
The roots of the filibuster can be found in the Constitution and in the Senate rules.
In establishing each House of Congress, Article I Section 5 of the Constitution states that "Each House may determine the rules."
In crafting the rules of the Senate, Senators established the right to extended debate - and they formalized it with Rule XXII almost 100 years ago. This rule codified the practice that Senators could debate extensively.
Under Rule XXII, debate may be cut off under limited circumstances.
- 67 votes to end a filibuster of a motion to amend a Senate rule.
- 60 votes to end a filibuster against any other legislative business.
A conversation between Thomas Jefferson and George Washington describes the United States Senate and our Founders Fathers vision of it.
Jefferson asked Washington what is the purpose of the Senate?
Washington responded with a question of his own, "Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?"
"To cool it," Jefferson replied.
To which Washington said; "Even so, we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it."
And this is exactly what the filibuster does. It encourages moderation and consensus. It gives voice to the minority, so that cooler heads may prevail.
It also separates us from the House of Representatives – where the majority rules.
And it is very much in keeping with the spirit of the government established by the Framers of our Constitution: Limited Government...Separation of Powers...Checks and Balances.
Mr. President, the filibuster is a critical tool in keeping the majority in check. This central fact has been acknowledged and even praised by Senators from both parties.
In fact, my colleague from Georgia – Senator Isakson - recently shared a conversation he had with an official from the Iraqi government.
The Senator had asked this official if he was worried that the majority in Iraq would overrun the minority. But the official replied… "no….we have the secret weapon called the 'filibuster.'"
In recalling that conversation, Senator Isakson remarked: "If there were ever a reason for optimism… it is one of [the Iraqi] minority leaders, proudly stating one of the pillars and principles of our government, as the way they would ensure that the majority never overran the minority."
And he was right.
I spoke yesterday about Senator Holt and his 1939 filibuster to protect workers’ wages and hours.
There are also recent examples of the filibuster achieving good.
In 1985, Senators from rural states used the filibuster to force Congress to address a major crisis in which thousands of farmers were on the brink of bankruptcy.
In 1995, the filibuster was used by Senators to protect the rights of workers to a fair wage and a safe workplace.
Now Mr. President, I will not stand here and say the filibuster has always been used for positive purposes.
Just as it has been used to bring about social change, it was also used to stall progress that this country needed to make. It is often shown that the filibuster was used against Civil Right legislation. But Civil Rights legislation passed -- Civil Rights advocates met the burden.
And it is noteworthy that today the Congressional Black Caucus is opposed to the Nuclear Option.
For further analysis, let’s look at Robert Caro, a noted historian and Pulitzer Prize winner.
At a meeting I attended with other Senators, he spoke about the history of the filibuster. He made a point about its legacy that was important.
He noted that when legislation is supported by the majority of Americans, it eventually overcomes a filibuster’s delay - as public protest far outweighs any Senator’s appetite to filibuster.
But when legislation only has the support of the minority, the filibuster slows the legislation …prevents a Senator from ramming it through…and gives the American people enough time join the opposition.
Mr. President, the right to extended debate is never more important than when one party controls Congress and the White House.
In these cases, the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government.
Right now, the only check on President Bush is the Democrats ability to voice their concern in the Senate.
If Republicans rollback our rights in this Chamber, there will be no check on their power. The radical, right wing will be free to pursue any agenda they want. And not just on judges. Their power will be unchecked on Supreme Court nominees…the President’s nominees in general…and legislation like Social Security privatization.
Of course the President would like the power to name anyone he wants to lifetime seats on the Supreme Court and other federal courts.
And that is why the White House has been aggressively lobbying Senate Republicans to change Senate rules in a way that would hand dangerous new powers to the President over two separate branches – the Congress and the Judiciary.
Unfortunately, this is part of a disturbing pattern of behavior by this White House and Republicans in Washington.
From Dick Cheney’s fight to slam the doors of the White House on the American people…
To the President’s refusal to cooperate with the 9-11 Commission…
To Senate Republicans attempt to destroy the last check in Washington on Republican power…
To the House Majority’s quest to silence the minority in the House…
Republicans have sought to destroy the balance of power in our government by grabbing power for the presidency, silencing the minority and weakening our democracy.
America does not work the way the radical right-wing dictates to President Bush and the Republican Senate Leaders. And Mr. President, that is not how the United States Senate works either.
For 200 years, we’ve had the right to extended debate. It’s not some "procedural gimmick."
It’s within the vision of the Founding Fathers of our country. They established a government so that no one person – and no single party -– could have total control.
Some in this Chamber want to throw out 217 years of Senate history in the quest for absolute power.
They want to do away with Mr. Smith coming to Washington.
They want to do away with the filibuster.
They think they are wiser than our Founding Fathers.
posted on May 20, 2005 05:47:21 AM new
Again a democRAT takes the written word of another MSM Dan Rather wanna be about the filibuster?
If you had taken the time to research the original idea of using the filibuster you would see, it was originally intended to be used as the exception not as the rule. Used only under special circumstances.
Not used indiscriminately as has become the democRATic rule.
Again read (if you can) the proposed changes to the filibuster rules. It does not call for a blanket cancelation of filibusters.
-
Top of the fold -- The Demos' Full-o-Bluster
The Democrats are indeed full of bluster, but the current debate over their obstruction of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees is no trivial matter. This debate is not about a "looming Constitutional crisis" -- we are in the midst of perhaps the most serious Constitutional crisis since the War Between the States.
For months now, Demo-gogues Harry Reid, Teddy Kennedy, Bobby Byrd, et al., with the help of their Leftmedia minions, have railed against any potential change of Senate procedure. Specifically, they object to a Republican proposal to end judicial filibustering, which, for the first time ever, is being used by the Demos to obstruct the prescribed constitutional process for reviewing judicial nominees.
Historically, Senate rules allowed for unlimited debate (filibuster) until 1917, when the rules were changed to allow a two-thirds vote (67 senators) to close debate and call for a vote. In 1975, the rules were changed to allow 60 senators to invoke cloture. At that time, Ted Kennedy said, "Again and again in recent years, the filibuster has been the shame of the Senate and the last resort of special-interest groups. Too often, it has enabled a small minority of the Senate to prevent a strong majority from working its will and serving the public interest."
Indeed, regarding judicial nominees, "a small minority of the Senate" is preventing the "majority from working its will and serving the public interest" by preventing judicial nominees from receiving their constitutionally-mandated full Senate vote.
More recently, when Democrats still held a Senate majority, two of today's principal obstructionists spoke strongly against judicial filibusters. Said Vermont's Patrick Leahy, "I have stated over and over again on this [Senate] floor that I would...object and fight against any filibuster on a judge." Delaware's Joe Biden added, "[E]veryone who is nominated is entitled...to have a hearing and to...have a vote on the floor. It is not...appropriate...not to bring them to the floor and not to allow a vote."
But that was then.
Now, Kennedy, Leahy, Biden and company are holding hostage a third of President George Bush's appellate-court nominees, preventing them from receiving an up-or-down confirmation vote in the full Senate.
The Demos assert that they are "protecting" the nation from radical judges who would do harm to our Constitution. Reid blusters, "The President is at it again with the extremist judges." Kennedy bloats, "[I will] resist any Neanderthal that is nominated by this president...for any federal court."
"My goal is to have fair up-and-down votes," responds Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. "Are we going to shift from that principle? The answer to that is no. ... All judicial and Supreme Court nominees deserve a fair up-or-down vote."
So, what's really going on?
Demos insist that preservation of the Constitution is at the center of this heated debate. They are, inadvertently, correct, except -- and it's a colossal exception -- that their plan for constitutional preservation is based on seating judges who "interpret" the Constitution and legislate by judicial diktat. Or, in the words of the august Sen. Sam Ervin, judges who "interpret the Constitution to mean what it would have said if they, instead of the Founding Fathers, had written it."
Indeed, the preservation of our Constitution -- and the fate of our Republic -- hangs in the balance. The window for correcting decades of judicial mischief is closing.
Plainly, the Constitution declares (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) that executive-branch appointments be subject to confirmation by the full Senate and that such consideration not be obstructed by a handful of ultra-partisans. However, Senate Democrats are dead-set on blocking the President's appellate-court nominations, because they know the real locus of central-government power resides on the federal bench with their cadre of judicial activists.
On the other hand, most of President Bush's nominees are constitutional constructionists -- those who issue rulings based on the letter of constitutional law as intended by our Founders, rather than interpreting it according to their constituent agenda -- and seating such nominees threatens to loosen the Democrats' stranglehold on our Constitution.
The Federalist Papers constitute the definitive explication of the Founders' "Original Intent" regarding our Constitution. In Federalist No. 32, Alexander Hamilton writes on the subject of constitutional interpretation, "[T]here is not a syllable in the [Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution."
In Federalist No. 45, the author of our Constitution, James Madison, writes about the limits of constitutional authority: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."
Hamilton and Madison clearly reveal the scope of our Constitution and its proscription on judicial interpretation. For decades, however, Democrats like Kennedy have seen to it that the federal bench is stacked with judicial activists who will "interpret" the Constitution on behalf of their constituent agendas, thus ensuring that those constituents will re-elect their political patriarchs in perpetuity.
Therein resides the greatest threat to our constitutional republic.
As Thomas Jefferson warned: "The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch. ... The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."
The final arbiter of constitutional law is the Supreme Court, and that body of jurists is one seat away from becoming the ultimate protectorate of the "despotic branch."
The Demos, of course, know that Mr. Bush's appellate-court judges will compose the A-list from which he'll nominate one or two Supreme Court justices before the end of his term. That is especially true of the DC Circuit Court from which Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg hail, and to which California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown was recently nominated.
This is precisely why the Demos' denial of full Senate consideration to constitutional constructionists such as Judge Brown, Priscilla Owen and Miguel Estrada is so important: The Demos simply can't stomach judges who will abide by their oath to "Support and defend the Constitution of the United States" -- "Neanderthals," as Kennedy calls them.
Of the Democrats' effort to block these and other Bush nominees, Justice Antonin Scalia concludes, "As long as judges tinker with the Constitution to 'do what the people want,' instead of what the document actually commands, politicians who pick and confirm new federal judges will naturally want only those who agree with them politically."
The Republican leadership has two options: Bow to the Demo filibuster and abandon these decent and well-qualified judges, or amend the rules for considering judicial nominees only and allow a simple-majority vote to enforce cloture. In the event there are not enough Republican senators with the spine to support the latter option, Majority Leader Frist may call in Vice President Cheney, in his constitutional role as presiding officer of the Senate, to rule that a constitutionally mandated process may not be obstructed by filibuster.
Mr. Cheney has pledged to cast the deciding vote if the Senate is deadlocked, noting, "On the merits, this should not be a difficult call to make. The [filibuster] tactics of the last few years, I believe, are inexcusable."
Enough already! Senator Frist, if need be, you must exercise the aforementioned Constitutional Option. The future of the Republic is in your hands. If necessary, "Nuke 'em"!
Quote of the week...
"When I was a leader in the Senate, a judicial filibuster was not part of my procedural playbook. Asking a senator to filibuster a judicial nomination was considered an abrogation of some 200 years of Senate tradition." --Bob Dole
(From 29 April 2005
Federalist Patriot No. 05-17)
A word to the wise ain't necessary, it's the stupid ones that need the advice."
- Bill Cosby
[ edited by Bear1949 on May 20, 2005 06:02 AM ]
posted on May 20, 2005 08:04:53 AM new
Oh Bear ha ha ha The Federalist Patriot ...gee the most un-biased reporting imaginable Hahahahahahaaaaa!!!!!!!!
So sorry, Dopey, but the Repugs want to do away with the filibuster altogether EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE USED IT THEMSELVES and MAY need it in the future.
"""Now, Kennedy, Leahy, Biden and company are holding hostage a third of President George Bush's appellate-court nominees, preventing them from receiving an up-or-down confirmation vote in the full Senate."""
bush has had more judges approved than any president in 40 years !
DUH!
posted on May 20, 2005 08:11:47 AM new
You know what amazes me sometimes? Theres this old saying in the bible that says in a nutshell: "You will have what you say."
Keep crawling crowfarm. Call the shots your way.
posted on May 20, 2005 08:49:01 AM new
Dble, why are you stalking mE!!!!Especially with this incoherent babbling...
"You know what amazes me sometimes? Theres this old saying in the bible that says in a nutshell: "You will have what you say."
Keep crawling crowfarm. Call the shots your way.""
What the hell are you talking about...could you just once say something, anything that makes any sense ?
posted on May 20, 2005 10:14:17 AM new
crowfarm you are an embarrassment to yourself. Why not instead of calling names post like an adult. You would probably get more respect, but I doubt it.
You have called almost everyone here a stalker, you have criticized, demoralized yourself in ways that are laughable.
Get over it crowfarm this is a discussion board not an english class, spelling class but a discussion board. All you do is show your ignorance when you correct people. Didn't your parents teach you anything, like manners and when and when not to speak. Or were you the nasty child on the block or in your class. Probably the most unlikely to succeed.
You are not the master of spelling and English as it has been proven so why do you point out everyone elses mistakes when you make many of them, or most of them.
Please note how you spell Today in the
bush's Toady Embarrassed Again. thread.
posted on May 20, 2005 10:33:12 AM new
libra, instead of attack , attack, attack, why don't you make an intelligent comment or at least, one related to the OP.
No, you came in here with a nonsensical post and now your nose is all out of joint because I called you on it.
Where did I call you a name?
And , as to stalking, why not address that to your obsessed friend linduh who seems to think that if anyone posts after she does they're stalking her.
Stalking....that's going through the trouble, for NO GOOD reason at all , to find out someone's first name.
Now, for ONCE, quit WHINING and say something !
posted on May 20, 2005 10:36:29 AM new
OH BY THE WAY...LIBRA...the word is "TOADY" referring to Norm Coleman, bush's toady, as in toad...a bumpy frog-like creature....referring to coleman's role as go-fer for bush and Rove......a toady
Too funny. T-o-a-d-y. I guess it could be a honest mistake in correcting you. However, sounds like she took great pleasure. That's what makes it so funny!
posted on May 20, 2005 12:09:06 PM new
Here's Kiara stirring the pot AGAIN. Sits back in the weeds and jumps out to keep stirring it.
Crowfarm accused me of stalking in another thread she posted 10 times I posted 3. Get over it who is the stalker?
She uses that word about everyone that posts to her posts that doesn't believe in her agenda. Keep checking Kiara and you will see that.
posted on May 20, 2005 12:22:50 PM new
Libra63, I think most of us can see quite well what is going on here. Even if one goes away for a day or two or seven or more, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure things out.
So don't try to tattle to me about what crowfarm did..... go tell someone who cares.
posted on May 20, 2005 03:47:20 PM new
Poor Libra63, She only attacks and tries to make other posters look bad. In reality Libra63 only makes herself look dumb.
About the Filibuster now that the American people have given all the power to the Republicans the Republicans are abusing it.
They are saying to 1/2 of America we don't care what you think ITS OUR WAY OR NO WAY.
posted on May 20, 2005 04:13:50 PM new
I see Libra still refuses to post anything but whining.
No, Libra, I didn't accuse you of stalking(stocking). I was being sarcastic and, as usual, it went right over your dizzy head.
linDUH's stalking accusations against me (when she can't answer a question) also must've gone right over your frizzy gray head since you can't seem to remember them.
A real stalker is someone who goes through the trouble to find out another's first name when there is no reason to.
posted on May 22, 2005 06:52:04 AM new
"Filibuster is an Integral Part of Country's History"
Slavery was an Integral part of our Country's history. Times change and so do we. The Filibuster is archaic and no longer should be part of our system.
Amen,
Reverend Colin
http://www.reverendcolin.com
posted on May 22, 2005 10:01:51 AM new
The dems are PANICED right now. They don't have control and there's likely to be a need for at least one USSC judge to be seated. Maybe more.
So they're trying to convince the American public that what they are doing is the way our government was set up.
Well....clue in. It's not.
Matter of FACT....the filibuster process has not been used against ***judges*** for 200 years. In the past it has been used for voting on legislation only.
Any dem here wish to prove me wrong? Show us ALL where this process WAS used in this way ....on judges?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 22, 2005 10:08:22 AM new
The filibuster was set up by our government as part of the series of checks and balances, an integral part of a DEMOCRACY.
If you hate deomcracy then you will be against checks and balances and that means DICTATORSHIP(a form of government highly approved by bush,rumsfeld and other neocons).
For Libra:
Edited to add, My guess is you didn't read the OP.
[ edited by crowfarm on May 22, 2005 10:11 AM ]
posted on May 22, 2005 12:06:45 PM new
Oh linduh, I see you don't answer posts that prove you wrong but here's some extra information....the word is "panicked".
