I’m sure the blog chatter is rising to insurmountable numbers as a minority of senators holds a filibuster on some of Bush’s judicial nominees. A lot of really stinky and manipulative terms have begun the short journey to stardom on national television and national papers everywhere.
If you haven’t heard the term ‘nuclear option’ in regards to this, you’ve just been asleep. Other terms flopping around in the breeze include constitutionality and the moral shame these filibuster’s overlay on the senate.
The notion that it’s this filibuster that has finally wrecked the reputation of the senate is ridiculous. Any doubts America has about this body of says-so’s were forged in iron during the 60′s. So, pride and prejudice aside, let’s stick to the issue.
By the way, our Congress has done a nice job preparing information on the legalities of the fillibuster. While I’m not advocating taking all your notes from this particular horses mouth, it seems the least partisan effected bit of material on the topic.
The filibuster is a Senate generated rule. It can be taken away at any time the Senate decides to do so. There is no lock in that house that isn’t just as much one parties fault as it is the others. Deadlocks in congress shouldn’t be taken lightly, especially when it’s a hold up about the views and ideologies of judges.
Historically, < href="http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/04/filibusters-untold-story.html" rel="external" title="Blogger looks up filibuster history">filibusters have been to the peoples’ benefit, though you may hear sweeping arguments about democrats filibustering against lynching. It’s all out of historical perspective.
I would argue it’s also inappropriate as none of the filibusters were about judicial nominees. In other words, we are in uncharted territory complicated by the system of approval for judges.
There is no formal groundwork that I’m aware of that seriously addresses this issue without passion. Filibusters have a notorious history with legislation, but not judicial nominees. Do we have a fundamental flaw in our system?
If the executive branch is to protect and execute the laws, the congress exists to write them and ratify them, and the judicial branch ensures the constitutionality of our system, what does it say when the person enforcing the laws selects the person judging the laws? That’s what the check of the senate is all about, ensuring the president can’t promote a self-serving agenda outside the realm of public interest.
I’m not diving into the qualifications and character of the judges, though I submit you should review them each carefully to decide for yourself. I’m disregarding the judges on the principle that my argument should hold just as much for a conservative president and Congress as it would any other party. It’s a dangerous person who accepts without question the positions and platforms these nominees stand for from political rhetoric with an agenda.
With that being said, and without noting what these judges actually stand for, it should seem immediately concerning that the argument against the judges, regardless of position, is that they are part of a movement on the part of the president to forward an agenda.
What president doesn’t pick judges that fit the agenda? Well, an honest one I would hope. It seems counterproductive to tip the scales of justice such that they begin to agree with eachother. I take a certain comfort in the level of dissent I see in court proceedings. It’s democracy working in a way it was meant to, intelligently and deliberately.
The senate has to decide what to do with filibusters, and I don’t see a claim one way or the either on that topic. It’s just as entitled to be there by the insight and forthought of senates past, a rule which both parties have used historically as any other rule they create. Any body arguing in terms of should or shouldn’t are skipping the point. It is. It doesn’t have to be in the future, but it is now.
It would behoove both parties to consider this issue outside of political heat, whenever that time comes. In the mean time, they new the rules when they signed up for that league. Filibuster was on the list, plain and clear, so it’s part of the game. That’s why a majority of Americans are against overthrowing a filibuster.
Whether you want those judges or not, brute forcing a minority around doesn’t look good in this country. We remember our roots to some degree, though odd and perverse. It’s in this odd history we may feel sentiment for the minority who step brashly in the face of a larger stronger opponent. Which brings up a curiousity.
With so many in favor of these judges, why can’t they win over the people with the truth? Maybe it isn’t the truth that’s bothering anyone.
I think we live in a society that does not want our government to become polar. A loud and roudy group of radicals have America wondering if it has to pick, and it doesn’t. Frankly, why not nominate different judges? Why is all the lack of compromise viewed to be on the filibusters’ side? Aren’t they the ones in the corner?
Admission: Most of the articles linked in this post refer to conservative articles arguing aganst the filibuster. I present these links in a way that implies I’m against the conservative view on this issue. To be clear, I’m against the poor and innaccurate arguments reflected on either side of this issue. The goal is to present a dispassionate view of filibusters, which included a document from the government on the nature and rules of filibusters.
I avoided the issue of the judges all together. It is unfair to evaluate these individuals in the light of congressional politics instead of personal performance and history. I feel strongly that the nature of the judges and the nature of filibustering is a separate topic only linked by cause in this case. I wanted to avoid a set-up where if you prefer the nominees, you disapprove of filibustering, and the opposite if you dislike the nominees.
Anyone who argues on behalf of the nominees is employing a red herring. While I’m sad so many lives are on hold during this time, public service comes with sacrifice, and anyone in the business seems to be keenly aware of that. We don’t cry when a senator looses his spot and must seek work elsewhere.
AMENDED ADMISSION: The article above doesn’t serve any large trough of ridicule towards the minority democrats in this case. The notion was to separate party arguments from factual ones. The fallout from choosing to stick to a filibuster is something history weighs on its own and I do not purport to predict that either party will come out shiny or ugly from this particular episode.
I would purport that Congress suffers when it cannot work together, which means the people suffer. Analyzing the complexities of who won’t reach across party lines is a guessing game left for political pundits, none of which I listen too.
Even from a historical perspective, it seems nearly impossible to accurately describe the sociological phenomena, much less where blame resides when it comes to party politics and the effects it had.
My continual experience with history is that large errors are made on the shoulders of small mistakes and ridiculous hobgobblins; any side is capable of that. More than likely, both sides are actively doing both.
One Comment
I have been watching this process or issue ever since Bush has been President and he began to submit his nominees. It is my observation that it is only the appelate Judge nominees the Democrat Senators are blocking. Oddly enough, some of the nominees for the lower courts were not so strongly opposed even when those had the same bent as the nominees for the higher courts who are being blocked. Putting the filibuster and nuke option aside, The President may be trying to stack the court but at least he is consistant. Of course political parties have agenda’s. Usually it is with the peoples best interest in mind. What I see happening is politically motivated and not true justified objections.
I don’t think the filibuster should be eliminated. I think it should be restored as its original requirements and definition were set. In Mr. Smith goes to Washington, a filibuster was respected because it was so tough to accomplish. It is too soft and too easy now, thus it is abused in a frivolous way. The democrats would make better use of their time working on the colleagues in the Senate to vote against the nominee on the floor in an up or down vote. After interviewing the nominee in committee, if they don’t like him, “advise” the Senate to vote him or her down and save the use of the filibuster for legitimate objections regarding policy on the floor of the Senate, not in committees. It is reasonable to expect the minority party to do what they can to nurture their philosophy or agenda as best they can. But they must use reason and common sense to appeal to the sympathy of the electorate and earn their support. And they must clearly articulate their position and offer, with logic, their solutions and actions they would take. Then sell it to the electorate.
That is how the Republicans did it in the early 90′s.
I believe the Democrats are squandering any political legitimacy they may have remaining. No one knows what they stand for. We all know what they stand against. That alone will continue to make them look like bad losers.
That’s my view.
Post a Comment