Third Party & Independents: Archives

Misha said: “the Democrats chosen tactic of filibustering judicial nominees will likely make the next fight the ugliest ever,”

I agree, but, I am not sure what you mean by chosen tactic. Do the Democrats have any other possible tactics?

I mean, Americans love their two party system, or else, we would have more competitive parties or none. So, the American system is one in which 2 parties struggle with each other over the course which this huge ship of state will pursue. The filibuster, provided for in our parliamentary procedures and rules, is a tool which at this point in time, given the issues and weight a Justice appointee will have in deciding the course of American law for possibly decades to come, would be used by either party if the shoe was on the other foot.

Also, you state the opposition will not be based on the nominee’s legal qualifications, but on their stance on particular issues. I think it would be more accurate to state, “in addition to their jurisprudence qualifications, the battle will hinge on the extent to which he/she is willing to support the liberal policy preferences on issues… “

When was a filibuster ever designed to do anything other than obstruct the will of the other party?

Otherwise, Misha, I tip my hat on a very, very good article that should be brought before the attention of Americans before the rhetoric gets lost in the extremism of partisan politics.

And I absolutely agree with you on alternatives. None are preferable to the partisan fight that is upcoming.

“Americans love their two party system ….” ??????????

You’ve got to be kidding. The problem is that there is no viable alternative.

The 2 Party system as it stands now hurts our country and I think most of us realize that. Especially when things are blocked just to show some power and for no other good reason.

Dawn, the proof is in the pudding. The Dems and Reps are the single reason there is no other viable competitive parties, and the majority of voters in November overwhelmingly chose to keep them there, with there strangle hold on debates, campaign finance, and qualification rules.

If voting Americans were at all concerned, they would not vote R-D, but, they did, in record numbers. Nader and Badnarik and others offered alternatives, and Americans clearly loved their R-D two party system and showed it.

To say otherwise is to do so in the face of the obvious.

David - I think the real problem is that the system encourages a duopoly. People vote for the D or R because those are the only “viable” candidates. Why? Because even if all the other candidates get 10%, and the D or R gets 11%, the D or R wins. We need to change the system to something more truly competitive, like instant runoff voting if we’re to deal with the two-party system effectively.

Misha -

Good thoughts. I only wish that the attitude in Washington was as well-considered. Unfortunately, competent governance has taken a back-seat to partisanship. Unless both sides make some compromises (tax code simplification? secondary education reform?), it’s going to be hard to accrue the political coin needed to trade with one’s opponents.

“The filibuster, provided for in our parliamentary procedures and rules, is a tool which at this point in time, given the issues and weight a Justice appointee will have in deciding the course of American law for possibly decades to come, would be used by either party if the shoe was on the other foot.”

What judicial nominees did the republicans filibuster? Is there any evidence that suggests they would do that? They have had plenty of time in the minority to do so, just a couple of years ago. Isn’t this just a democrat excuse to do something unconstitutional?

David:
“The filibuster, provided for in our parliamentary procedures and rules, is a tool which at this point in time, given the issues and weight a Justice appointee will have in deciding the course of American law for possibly decades to come, would be used by either party if the shoe was on the other foot.”

I agree completely. We have an ideologue administration who everyone knows will select judges based on their views regarding wedge issues - a fact we all knew would cause the ugly fight to come.
Lifetime appointments to the bench whose will rulings affect the whole of American society for years to come is an excellent reason to use the time honored tradition of the filibuster.

Misha:
“On the other side of the political battle, Bush and his people should try to reach out to Democrats”

But they never have once, so why should they suddenly start to now? They’ve done nothing but encourage the nasty partisan atmosphere in Washington, despite all the “uniter, not divider” hot air.

BTW, nice piece.

Adrienne,

“regarding wedge issues”

The Dem party has passed them out like candy for the past 20 or so years.
Did you expect the Rep’s to not use them against you?
There are only “X” amount of voters in this country, if any party alianinates enough of them to lose control, I would think they need to look at issues, platform, or leadership within the party, not blame someone else.
Not everyone that left the Dem party are now Rep’s, some are IND’s too.

Its kinda hard to deny that some left, otherwise they would still be in control?

Everyone has opinions on the issues, some issues there is no middle ground, its yes or no.
If any party embraces too many yes/no issues, they might have a hard time getting elected?

I didn’t leave The Dem party, I was driven out.

The thing I do not understand is what exact standard Bush should apply to avoid a fillibuster. I mean, I named 3 excellent Circuit Court judges, who are about as conservative as Ginsburg was liberal, and I think all three (or at least 2 out of the 3) would likely face a fillibuster (Wilkinson might slip by, especially if he was replacement Renquist). If Democrats want to oppose any judge that doesnt agree with Roe v. Wade, that elliminates virtually every conservative jurist of note that I know of. It would like if republicans had vetoed any pro- roe v. wade person Clinton had brought up (in which case Ginsburg wouldnt have walked right through the nomination process).

Anyway, this Harry Reidseems like an alright guy (at least from his comments about Scalia- although he does seem to harbor an irrational view on Thomas), so maybe Bush can wisen up and try to get him into an office and get some input. Bush needs to realize that if he wants to leave his legacy on the Suprem Court, trying to run over Democrats with a bulldozer is counterproductive.

Misha,
A ‘conservative’ judge replacing will be met with the usual noise, but I doubt there would be much more than posing. However, a real conflict will happen if a ‘conservative’ judge takes the place of a ‘liberal’ one.

I can’t imagine the Bush administration would be foolish enough to nominate another unknown, like Souter, or anyone extreme; there’s simply no need. A judicious selection of a ‘conservative’ replacing another should sail through.

Misha—

This administration is not interested in compromise, and it has very little interest in seeing the work of the people done. Bush and his cronies have an agenda and there is very little room for compromise from his section of the camp. The Republican vote in lock-step no matter the issue. Bush will of course submit someone who will be totally unsatisfactory to the Democrats and when they threaten to filibuster the nomination he will accuse them of being obstructionists.

You are right, it will be ugly and that might explain why the Chief Justice has not stepped down despite his illness.

Beagle on wedge issues:
“The Dem party has passed them out like candy for the past 20 or so years.”

Oh, its been much longer than that. Since you used to be a Democrat, you should be familiar with the fact that Democrats have always been progressive - and have fought every hard battle needed to ensure that Average and Poor Americans weren’t steamrollered by the Rich. So of course they would be the ones addressing issues that conservatives either deny the existance of, or wish to ignore.

“Did you expect the Rep’s to not use them against you?”

I expect very little from the Republicans - because they are a party who have always resisted progress while representing the status quo and ignoring the needs of Average and Poor Americans.

“There are only “X” amount of voters in this country, if any party alianinates enough of them to lose control, I would think they need to look at issues, platform, or leadership within the party, not blame someone else.”

Judging by the past two elections, I’d say that the people who actually go out to vote in this country are pretty evenly split between Left and Right modes of thought. And if one takes a good hard look at all the problems surrounding the voting process during those past two elections, they will find themselves wondering if in fact it is so very evenly split.

“Not everyone that left the Dem party are now Rep’s, some are IND’s too.”

Or some are Green Party now. I for one, being a true liberal.

“Its kinda hard to deny that some left, otherwise they would still be in control?”

I believe that Dems could very easily be in control again - and that that will happen a whole lot quicker if they go back to their liberal roots and resume representing Average and Poor Americans, but to do that, they first need to quit mirroring the hard right turn of the Republican Party.

“Everyone has opinions on the issues, some issues there is no middle ground, its yes or no.”

Yes, like whether women are free enough to have sovereinty over their own bodies.

“If any party embraces too many yes/no issues, they might have a hard time getting elected?”

Perhaps, but not if the opposing party lies, cheats, and steals, to win an election.

“I didn’t leave The Dem party, I was driven out.”

Maybe you were never a progressive thinker to begin with?
So, which party do you belong to now?
In my opinion, the only reason it makes sense to be a Republican is if one is wealthy with a distinct lack compassion for those who aren’t, as well as a total disregard for the health and safety of the environment.

ok, what I want to know is will the more liberal people on the board support a fillibuster against respecedt circuit court judge (like Wilkinson or Roberts) if he disagress with you on the constitutionality of abortion and affirmative action? If your answer is you would not support such a fillibuster, then the key is for Bush to find someone like this. If your answer is you would support such a fillibuster on just this basis, I think an ugly battle is inevitable..

Misha, it seems to me the trick for Bush is to select a highly qualified candidate who has no record on abortion but does have a record on living up to the Constitution’s promise to freedom on privacy issues. But, that won’t happen, because Bush wants someone who will overturn RvW. Which in turn justifies a filibuster. Both sides play this game, the President and his opposition party in the Senate. And freedom to choose to be a parent or not is so basic a principle for each party that there is no way a middle road will be found unless the nominee has no record on the issue.

Affirmative action is not as large an issue with Democrats since they too are split on the issue.

David, my point is that most conservatives oppose Roe v. Wade, yet did not fillibuster Ginsburg. if the liberals, who mostly support roe v. wade, demand conservatives appoint someone who doesnt represent their views on this key issue, it is the liberals who are creating an unfair situation and conservatives are justified in taking steps to get around this double-standard of obstructionism.

On the other hand, this is only a last resort when the liberals have showed that there is no conservative candidate who will satify them (in actually, i think there are enough reasonable liberals out there- the only question is whether they stand up, or are beaten down by the majority of the party).

Finally, I do not want anyone appoint to the Court, right or left, with little public record. I want a judge who has a lot of experience, and thus his/her views would not be secret. I want people who have written extensive and have a great deal of respect in the legal community.

Misha, I seem to recall a Republican filibuster of Clinton’s budget, which brought the government to a halt, and backfired on the Republicans. Could that perhaps be the reason Republicans now shout no filibuster, because they got burned by its use?

Do you really believe every qualified potential justice out there has had to, in their career, reveal their stance on the abortion issue or Roe v. Wade? I think not. And if you think they are not qualified due to not having exposed their view in their career, are you not applying a lithmus test?

David, i think having some view on record on the most important and contraversial case in the last 30 years is pretty basic. In any case, I do not want to choose justices based on whether they were political enough to keep their mouths shut- i want to choose the best jurists. Moreover, I want people who are not afraid to expose their opinions and argue them.

As for fillibusters, as long as they are used for particually bad appointments, in rare cases, I think they are just fine and even admirable. For example, judge Prior might ahve been worthy of a fillibuster (on the other hand, Miguel Estrada was fillibustered for pathetic political reasons, and the democrats should be ashamed of themselves). The problem is when they become a complete block against any conservative justice, at which point they become irresponsible and then something must be done about them. Like I said, we will see what happens- hopefully Democrats will be reasonable, and allow Bush to appoint qualified conservatives, and hopefully Bush will consult with them to make it more likely that this will occur.

Someone mentioned that they did not recall that the Republicans Filibustered any of Clinton’s judicial nominees
Might I remind people — They didn’t have to, they were in power in the congress
As you recall, the Republicans blocked a huge MAJORITY of Clinton’s nominees, and there were a even few vacancies that were NEVER filled!!.
So I have a real hard time crying any tears for the 5 nominees (or so) that have been blocked so far — anybody parroting the “outrage” at Democrate “obstructionism” has only totally bought into the Republican propoganda machine.
The current administration does nothing but institute policy by propoganda, the current Social Security “Crisis” is merely the lastest example.
quite whining and grow up.

Misha, thank you for confirming you need for lithmus tests on jurists. It is a realistic and pragmatic approach that is inescapeable given the structure of our government and the divided partisan issues we face.

I love this line, Misha: “As for fillibusters, as long as they are used for particually bad appointments, in rare cases, I think they are just fine and even admirable.”

And just who is to decide which ones are particularly bad appointments, you, or the Senators of the Senate? Do you we need a jury trial to test when appointments viewed as bad from an opposing party’s Senators, are ‘IN FACT’ bad, or just their opinion and thus, should not be deserving of the right to filibuster. :-)

David- I have my own opinion on what is and is not a good reason for fillibustering someone. The Democratic senators have been elected, and of course, they can make their own choices. But if their standard is so broad that it encompasses every single perosn who oppose roe v. wade (which is almost every conservative jurists), they have stopped using the fillibuster power as narrow technique to stop particularly unqualified candidate, and have turned it into something much bigger. If this becomes their approach, conservatives should seriously consider other approaches of how to deal with the PRUDENTIAL fillibuster rule.

Like I said, i do not want the fillibuster rule to go- it serves an important purpose. But if it is abused to the extent that virtually half of our judiciary is automatically blocked from even getting an up or down vote in front of the Senate, the situation has gotten too far… But, like I said, I do not think that we are at that point, as I think there are a good number of reasonable Democrats in the Senate.

Russ- in 1993, when Ginsburg was nominated, the Republicans were the minority (before the 1994 Congress came in). Not only did they not fillibuster her, all but 3 voted FOR her, despite her being leftist on issues like abortion. All I am asking is for Democrats to give such consideration to conservatives Supreme Court nominees. How is that such a big request? Like I said, when a Supreme Court nominee is up, we will see what occurs.

As for the nominees being blocked for the CIRCUIT courts (a much different issue in terms of scope), arent you at least interest in the particular reasons for which they were blocked? one was blocked despite having a perfect American Bar Association record as a judge- wouldnt you be curious as to why he was targeted?

Let me just emphasize, my points on this thread are directed toward the concern that SUPREME COURT nominees will be subject to a fillibuster for the sole reason of being against roe v. wade. My hope is that Bush working together with Democrats like Harry Reid can avoid this consequence (which, I think, would lead to the elimination of the fillibuster rule, if it is really used against every single anti-roe v. wade candidate).

Misha said: “Russ- in 1993, when Ginsburg was nominated, the Republicans were the minority (before the 1994 Congress came in). Not only did they not fillibuster her, all but 3 voted”

Wasn’t that before abortion was adopted as a core issue of the Republican Party, i.e., before the religious right got enough money together to lobby and create a voting constituency Republicans could not ignore? I think if Ginsberg came up today under the same Congressional configuration as then, Republicans would easily and voluminously filibuster her nomination, votes and power are at stake now on this issue, not like in 1993.

David- like i said, if the approach will be to fillibuster every candidate who is pro-life, then the fillibuster rules will be changed, as they have been in the passed (it used to be 67 votes to stop a fillibuster, now its only 60). Hopefully, a better compromise can be worked out where the most objectionable (to democrats) candidates can be withdrawn, while qualified conservatives jurists can still have an oppertunity for recieve a vote.

If that is the case, and Republicans change the rule, they will one day regret it mightily. They have already changed enough rules to make their future minority status in the Congress a living hell. What goes around, will come around, eventually.

You are right, it is not a reform I look foward to. Only a compromise from both sides can avoid it, however.