<p>If you go to <a href=“http://www.filibusterfrist.com%5B/url%5D”>www.filibusterfrist.com</a>, you will see that Princeton students – having raised $10,000 and attracted considerable media attention – have moved their “filibuster” from the Frist Student Center on campus to Washington, DC, where they have been joined by students from other campuses there and from across the country. The issue, of course, is preserving the filibuster, and Princeton students have been invited to a meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee.</p>
<p>If the students were “filibustering” in support of forcing all filibusters to be the old-fashioned kind they are emulating, I would actually be for them! :)</p>
<p>What will be really interesting is to track these student’s views on the filibuster when the tide changes and the Demcrats are the ones who are being filibustered. </p>
<p>One has to seriously question their motives: are they fighting to save the right to filibuster a judicial appointment even though until Bush came into office it had never been used to block an appointment who had majority approval … or are they just pursuing a backdoor way to have their minority views to be imposed on the majority.</p>
<p>Our democracy was designed so the the majority can’t oppress the minority. </p>
<p>Ps- The democrats have been fillbustered. And do some research, the Republicans have blocked a judicial nominee, and no one knew if that appointee had a majority or not. Its interesting that if the majority doesn’t get its way 100% of the time, even though they are 100% of the representation, they want to change the rules.</p>
<p>I hope they try to push them through before they (if they’re going to) pursue a Cheney-mandated rule change to ban fillibusters.</p>
<p>As of right now people just say “I’ll fillibuster this” and in accordance with newer Senate rules it takes a very small number of senators to vote to change the topic of debate and put the fillibustered topic on the backburner.</p>
<p>In the old days you had to stand up there and keep talking. I just don’t think old Teddy or John Kerry (or any of their impersonators) can stay away from their alcohol/yachts respectively long enough to actually go through with a real fillibuster.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One. As opposed to “all”.</p>
<p>One. Who actually had serious ethical charges against him. Not alleged quirks to be exploited by the sympathetic media. I haven’t seen any source yet that denies the fact that Fortas would have been denied by the then Democrat-controlled Senate in a floor vote.</p>
<p>SO, its one, not never. But to say never, tsk tsk.</p>
<p>Bush got through 95% of his appointees. Clinton had many more blocked. But, I know this argument is going to go in circles. </p>
<p>I want to keep the filibuster. </p>
<p>THose who want to have every judge ever requested get through, even thoough other Republicans have raised serious doubts, well, don’t look at creditionals, don’t look at what others have said, just push them on through.</p>
<p>Its almost like “we want the WHOLE cake” and if we can’t have it, we are gonna stomp our feet until we get our way…</p>
<p>sigh,</p>
<p>If you are gonna bad mouth Kerry or Kennedy for yachts, etc, you have opened a whole can of worms…lets see, BUSH, admitted alcoholic, very rich family, raised in the same place as Kerry, schooled in the same place…he only leaves Texas when it suits him…</p>
<p>CityGirlsMom - you’re forgetting one <em>tiny</em> issue. The Democrats didn’t have control of the Senate for most (all?) of Clinton’s presidency. </p>
<p>In Democracies, that is an important distinction, my friend! Many “blocked” people just died in comittee because they would have never passed an up-and-down vote anyway.</p>
<p>Bush has had 30x as many people blocked by a democrat minority (in four years + change) as Clinton had by a republican MAJORITY (in eight years).</p>
<p>Yet, you want to say Republican’s are acting like this?:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
Johnson withdrew the nomination of Abe Fortas after just a few days of senate debate after he lost the support of Everitt Dirkson and hence knew that he would not win an up/down vote. I hardly call that a defeat by filibuster. Had the rules been in place as Frist is suggesting, Fortas would also have been defeated since the debate had not even lasted 100 hours.</p>
<p>I don’t think the Democrats are aware of the can of worms that they have opened with the new concept of filibustering judicial appointments. Do they think that they will EVER get another Ruth Bader Ginsburg approved now that they have made it fair game to attack someone because they don’t share his/her political temperment. </p>
<p>Also, now that they have shown their willingness to use the nuclear option to filibuster judges, does anyone think that if/when the tide is turned and they are in the majority that won’t hesitate a minute to use the “nuclear” option once again to end filibusters?</p>
<p>“Our democracy was designed so the the majority can’t oppress the minority.”</p>
<p>Hopefully it was also designed so that the minority cannot oppress the majority. Thourhout human history that has been the more typical form of oppression.</p>
<p>I’d actually be very happy if we went a couple of decades without being able to appoint another judge to the federal bench. The judiciary has become a tyrrany and the courts unaccountable to either the people or the law.</p>
<p>If the Democrats don’t allow an up or down vote on judicial appointees and the filibuster is not removed then that is exactly what will happen - a withering away of the judiciary. Courts being packed with recess appointments.</p>
<p>The Judiciary is a TYRANNY? Thats a new one. Why even have a checks and balances. I see where this is going. I guess our forthfathers were sooo wrong in wanting to have an independent judicial systems. </p>
<p>Bush has 95% approved. The most radical ones are being blocked. Does he want any kind of checks and balances… guess not…</p>
<p>In the last six years of Clinton’s term, Republicans confirmed 71% of his judicial nominees - 245 in all. (Like Reagan and the current President Bush, Clinton faced many more vacancies immediately after his inauguration due to retirements from the bench.) By contrast, Reagan and Bush Sr. had approximately an 80% success rate versus opposing party Senates.</p>
<p>I guess 95% is just not good enough…republicans want it all…</p>
<p>The Senate has only blocked 3.4 percent of President Bush’s judicial nominees. This is compared to the Senate, under Republican control, blocking 20 percent of President Clinton’s judicial nominees.(Source : Sen. Leahy,</p>
<p>'Holding the line on judicial nominees</p>
<p>By John Nowacki
web posted October 30, 2000</p>
<p>When the 106th Congress finally adjourns, the Senate will have confirmed 72 of President Clinton’s judicial nominees, leaving him five short of Ronald Reagan’s record 378 judicial appointments. That means that of all this country’s active federal judges, over 46 percent are Clinton appointees. Clinton’s confirmations-to-vacancy ratio for this year is at 54 percent, higher than the ratio in the presidential election year 1992 (51 percent), when the Democrats ran the Senate. In other words, Clinton has had a pretty good run at changing the face of the judiciary, thanks to the Republican-led Senate, which confirmed about two-thirds of his nominees.</p>
<p>But as the Senate leaves, 40 nominees will remain unconfirmed. Among the 40 not confirmed are a number of activist nominees, potential judges whose judicial philosophy would allow them to make law from the bench, and not merely interpret and apply the real laws passed by the Congress. And while Senate Democrats have pushed hard for some of these activists to be confirmed, Republicans have–finally–shown some gumption and said NO."- from a republican journalist- I guess 66% was a good enough appointment rate back then</p>
<p>From the ABA</p>
<p>In mid-February 2000, the Senate finally approved one court of appeals appointment to the Third Circuit and a district court appointment for New Jersey. Neither confirmation was controversial, but they had been delayed by “holds” that individual senators may exercise, even for unrelated matters. In effect, the appointments are held “hostage.” In this instance, however, the Majority Leader, Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss.), exercised his authority to override the hold and force a vote. Lott’s action was taken despite efforts by nineteen conservative senators to block any further judicial nominations during the remainder of Clinton’s term.</p>
<p>Politics at play in judicial filibuster flap
Jon Delano </p>
<p>For six years, from 1995 to 2001, U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, a Republican, used Senate parliamentary maneuvers to block an up-or-down vote in the U.S. Senate on every one of President Clinton’s judicial nominees for the federal bench here in Western Pennsylvania. </p>
<p>Not one nominee of Mr. Clinton’s to the local federal court was confirmed during those years. It wasn’t until a Republican president started to make appointments that Mr. Santorum lifted his personal filibuster. </p>
<p>Mr. Santorum’s objection to the judicial nominees of a Democratic president was not simply political. He was blunt in asserting that some of the candidates were, in his view, just not qualified for a life-long appointment. </p>
<p>Fast forward to 2005. </p>
<p>Now the third-ranking Republican leader in the Senate, Mr. Santorum today argues that every nominee of the president deserves an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. To reach that goal, he and many of his GOP colleagues want to repeal the long-standing filibuster rule whereby a minority of senators can block Senate action until 60 senators say it’s time to end all debate. </p>
<p>Objective observers can be forgiven for seeing a lot of rank political hypocrisy on all sides of the filibuster argument. For decades, senators in both parties have been able to “blue slip” presidential nominees, a process by which a minority keeps the majority from voting to confirm. </p>
<p>Most of this occurs behind the scenes where so-called Senate courtesy keeps the public from knowing who is blocking whom. </p>
<p>The first truly public filibuster of a judicial nominee appears to have been engineered by the Republicans nearly 40 years ago over President Johnson’s appointment of Abe Fortis as chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Johnson was in his last year as president, and Republicans knew that if they could delay confirmation, a Republican president might soon be able to make this important appointment. </p>
<p>Of course, that crass political notion was not the public reason for the filibuster. Publicly, Mr. Fortis was assailed over certain ethical practices, and the Democratic president ultimately withdrew the nomination. </p>
<p>As far as I can determine, no Democrat suggested changing the filibuster rule to allow an up-or-down vote on Mr. Fortis. </p>
<p>As U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, a moderate Republican and chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has correctly observed, both parties have engaged in judicial partisanship in recent years. </p>
<p>In the good old days, presidents generally had at least 90 percent of their judicial nominees confirmed by the Senate, even when the White House and the Senate were controlled by opposing parties. That first began to change when President Reagan was in office and the Democrats controlled the Senate, and then escalated when Mr. Clinton was elected and the Republicans controlled the Senate. </p>
<p>Mr. Reagan got about 80 percent of his judicial nominees through the Senate, while Mr. Clinton got only 71 percent of his nominees confirmed. </p>
<p>In contrast to his predecessors, President George W. Bush has had a remarkable 95 percent confirmation success rate with his judicial appointments. That has happened not only because Republicans have controlled the Senate for most of the Bush years, but also because Democrats have chosen to block confirmation in only a handful of cases. </p>
<p>Republican efforts to change the rules so as to get 100 percent of the president’s nominees, instead of 95 percent, seems so crassly political that it’s hard to imagine it succeeding. </p>
<p>As regular readers of this column know, I have been consistently critical of political efforts to block judicial appointments, especially in this region, where highly qualified Democrats and Republicans have been appointed to the local federal bench. </p>
<p>But that doesn’t mean every judicial nominee should be confirmed by the Senate. </p>
<p>Over the years, the filibuster has been an important tool in checking the arrogance of power of the majority party in control of that body. That is especially needed in the Senate, which, after all, is an inherently undemocratic institution, representing 50 states, not people. </p>
<p>Consider that the four senators from California and New York, representing 57.6 million people, have no more clout on judicial nominees than the four senators from Wyoming and Alaska, representing just 1.1 million people. </p>
<p>If you add up the constituents represented by the 55 Republican senators (splitting evenly those states represented by two senators from opposing parties), it turns out that the majority Republicans represent 4 million fewer Americans than the minority Democrats. </p>
<p>This is not to deny the Senate’s important Constitutional role as a representative of the states, but merely to note that by preserving minority rights and privileges within the Senate you enhance the likelihood of a more popular democratic outcome. </p>
<p>Forget all the rhetoric on both sides. The effort to change the filibuster rule is really about raw power. If I saw some evidence that Mr. Bush’s judicial nominees were being blocked at the same level as Mr. Clinton’s and Mr. Reagan’s were, I might be more sympathetic to those who want to change the rules. </p>
<p>But changing the rules to get 100 percent of the marbles, instead of just 95 percent, strikes me as political greed extraordinaire"</p>
<p>He said it very well.</p>
<p>Sure Dems have blocked, but so have Republicans…they don’t like the rules they change em to suit the situation. Take a look at the debacle i the ethics committee. </p>
<p>But, don’t look at history. Look only at today and how, without a mandate, half the country is being ignored. </p>
<p>the Republican majority represents 4MILLION less people than the Democrats. But hey, thems with the power just want more.</p>
<p>Please show me stats of 30X blocked…who where when, </p>
<p>"Also, now that they have shown their willingness to use the nuclear option to filibuster judges, "…what?</p>
<p>"Describing the filibusters as intolerable, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has hinted he may resort to an unusual parliamentary maneuver, dubbed the “nuclear option,” to thwart such filibusters. " Washington Post</p>
<p>THE NUCLEAR OPTION IS NOT THE FILIBUSTER…JEESH…IT READ ABOVE, IT WAS A FRIST PHRASE, HE STARTED USING IT TO STOP THE FILIBUSTER…IT WAS A REPUBLICAN PHRASE, THE FILIBUSTER IS NOT THE NUCLEAR OPTION!!!</p>
<p>I yelled because it was FRIST who made up the word nuclear option to stop filibusters, but suddenly that phrase was bad, so they made it come from democrats instead…</p>
<p>No, you’re mistaking “first” with “Frist.” It was Trent Lott who ill-advisedly first used the term, not Frist. Whatever. You guys are toast. [smileyfacewithmushroomcloud]</p>
<p>Yep, once the constitutional option has been imposed there will be some major changes around here. Hopefully Ginsburg falls off the face of the earth so she can be replaced, as well ;).</p>
<p>Once affirmative action, Vermont’s right to define gay marriage across the nation, and “the woman’s right to choose” infanticide are repealed, what will the world look like?</p>
<p><a href=“Buckinghamshire Council | Aylesbury, Chiltern, South Bucks, Wycombe”>Buckinghamshire Council | Aylesbury, Chiltern, South Bucks, Wycombe;
<p>I can see the liberals wincing already!</p>
<p><em>ducks</em></p>
<p>Whatever, since you are all so caring really live the life you preach, because I can tell where this is going, I will leave while I still have a tiny bit of dignity left.</p>
<p>Its interesting how you have decided not to address the point made about judicial nominees and have brought in choice affirmative action and gay marriage…sure, no body wants activist judges here…</p>
<p>Good thing you guys weren’t around when JUDGES upheld Civil Rights legislation. Can’t wait to see what your new world order is gonna look like. Hmmm, pretty much like the religious fundamentalist countries we are trying to free…</p>
<p>Tata…off to actually do some good work, and help some people</p>
<p>hey, nice of you to wish someone death, very classy</p>