In the comments to this post below discussing Bob Dole’s politiely (albeit one-sided) view of the judicial nominee impasse, a commenter wrote that Boib Dole is a “hatchet-man.” I wonder what that makes Al Gore, who has made careless and an inflammatory rhetoric an art-form:
In a speech Wednesday to members of the MoveOn.org Political Action Committee, former Vice President Al Gore called possible attempts to change Senate rules on filibusters “a poison pill for America’s democracy” and “a dangerous American heresy…”
In the prepared version of his speech, Gore said he was “genuinely dismayed and deeply concerned by the recent actions of some Republican leaders to undermine the rule of law by demanding the Senate be stripped of its right to unlimited debate where the confirmation of judges is concerned.”
Gore urged Senate leaders to “halt their efforts to break the Senate’s rules.”
I wonder if he delivered it in revivalist minister fashion, or maybe he just does that at black churches before elections. At any rate, a couple quick points from this excerpt:
1.) I wish the Senate could play nice, but they can’t. There are no grown-ups anymore. Regardless, this is not going to poison democracy- unless of course you think letting elected officials vote on judicial nominees means the end of democracy. I don’t.
2.) No one is undermining the rule of law- this is completely legal.
3.) There has not been unlimited debate. If there were unlimited debate, the Democrats would lose. People would watch two weeks of debate on the nominees and finally start to say to themselves- “Why don’t they just vote on the damned guy.” Which, of course, is precisely what the Republicans are suggesting.
If you think the public would get pissed at you shutting down the Senate (which they won’t- there is a marked difference between shutting down the Senate and shutting down the government), you should try to see how pissed the public will get when you bore them to death with a month of wall to wall Senate debate on one nominee.
4.) No one is going to break Senate rules. They are going to break with tradition and CHANGE the rules.
At any rate, I do have to admit to having a few chuckles that the party which in general believes in a living Constitution open to interpretation and modernization somehow has worked itself into a lather about Senate organizing rules, which, if you believe Al Gore, are sacrosanct.
C’mon Democrats- pull yourself together. I don’t like this change of rules, either, but it will not be the end of the world. You guys are starting to sound like Andrew Sullivan. Or me.
Brad R.
Heh. It IS amazing how quickly Al Gore went from “boring technocrat” to “shrill partisan”- it doesn’t really fit him. It’s like listening to Pat Boone’s metal album (and not nearly as entertaining).
Kimmitt
People would watch two weeks of debate on the nominees and finally start to say to themselves- “Why don’t they just vote on the damned guy.”
Republicans have every power to force this, so why don’t they?
I don’t like this change of rules, either, but it will not be the end of the world.
It’s more the attitude behind it — “The rules are only allowing us to push through 99.9% of our agenda! Let’s change them so that the minority has no power whatsoever, in contravention of longstanding tradition! Further, let’s not even get rid of the filibuster in a general sense but do this wanky topic-only thing which makes clear that rules are meaningless!”
The rhetoric is pretty heated, but the anger behind the actions is quite legitimate. If we don’t comport ourselves by rules and norms, a certain banana flavor starts to seep into our Republic.
Jimmie
He actually used the word “heresy”?
Where’s the outrage for the blatant religious imagery here from those who keep the word “theocrat” in a quick-draw holster?
Geoduck
Al Gore can shoot his mouth and/or foot off all he wants, because he is now a private citizen with close to zero control over the levers of political power. On the other hand, when the Majority Leader of the United States Senate starts cheerfully and publically rubbing elbows with people who want to impose overt Biblical Law on this country, then he’s a Bleeping theocrat.
Jimmie
Yeah, it’s a shame that folks with religious views want their views represented in a democratic government.
They ought to be shot or stuck in camps. At the very least they ought to shut up and know their place.
JG
‘Yeah, it’s a shame that folks with religious views want their views represented in a democratic government.’
It is a shame. THIS democratic government isn’t supposed to recognize religious views. The reps can be as religious as they want. The institution can’t be.
‘Our founders understood that the way you protect and defend people of faith is by preventing any one sect from dominating. ‘
Well said I think.
Pudentilla
“4.) No one is going to break Senate rules. They are going to break with tradition and CHANGE the rules.”
wouldn’t it be more accurate to add, “in a way that VIOLATES the rules?”
if one believes that democrats might someday again enjoy a majority in both houses (and realists would concede it is a distant day – but a real one) then democrats will use this precedent to dispense with legislative filibusters – not via an up or down vote on the rules (which could be filibusterd) but via a parlimentary challenge (which will only require 51 vots). And the next day Republican opposition to gun control, minimum wage and a host of other democratic legislative agendas will be of no avail. and on that day, democrats will say, “oh, grow up.”
Brad R.
Yeah, it’s a shame that folks with religious views want their views represented in a democratic government.
They ought to be shot or stuck in camps. At the very least they ought to shut up and know their place.
Yeah, it’s not like their party controls the White House and both houses of Congress or anything…
TM Lutas
I don’t see the rule change procedure as either illegal or untraditional. The multiple times (4 to be exact) that Majority Leader Robert Byrd used exactly this tactic to change rules by simple majority vote in order to break filibusters makes its own tradition.
Up until now this has been a tradition that has been exclusively honored by the Democrats when they are in the majority. Frist is honoring the Byrd tradition by using the same tactics to get his way. What’s wrong with that?
Jimmie
“It is a shame. THIS democratic government isn’t supposed to recognize religious views. The reps can be as religious as they want. The institution can’t be.”
Really? That is going to shock the living hell out of the guys who actually founded the government when they find out. They kind of thought the exact opposite.
John Cole
Really? That is going to shock the living hell out of the guys who actually founded the government when they find out. They kind of thought the exact opposite.
Ahh, damnit to hell. Now one side can vastly overstate the record regarding the formation of the country and religion and someone on the other side can vastly understate the issue, claiming all the fonders were deists or something…
This thread is now beyond repair, now that the Jesus equivalent of Godwin’s Law has been invoked.
Christie S.
“This thread is now beyond repair, now that the Jesus equivalent of Godwin’s Law has been invoked.”
Heh…I agree. Onto the original subject of the thread..
How’s about giving the blue slip provision to the Senate body itself in return for sending all judiciary nominees to the floor, bypassing extended committee debate entirely?
That way we can ALL hear ALL the info about a nominee and then pester our Senators with our opinions.
Hmmm…I don’t know whether I mean this as a snark or if it could actually be workable.
Jimmie
“Ahh, damnit to hell. Now one side can vastly overstate the record regarding the formation of the country and religion and someone on the other side can vastly understate the issue, claiming all the fonders were deists or something…”
Pull back a second there, John. I was responding directly to an error in the earlier comment. To say that the government can’t represent religious views is ridiculous and easily disproved. I have no intention on steering this conversation into an argument about how much religion the Founders wanted, only noting that they quite clearly intended for individuals’ religious beliefs to have a welcome part in public life. That’s all.
To the topic at hand, I don’t mind the filibuster rule change. In the past, the filibuster has been available for judicial nominees, but each side pretty much decided that it would be far beyond the pale to actually use it. Since there was a common sense of propriety that prevented the misuse of the filibuster, there was never a need to explicitly prohibit it.
Unfortunately, now, propriety is way out the window and it’s now necessary to make explicit what used to be commonly understood.
John Cole
He said it wasn’t supposed to ‘recognize,’ which means tacitly endorse, which is precisely what “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” means. He is right about the former clause, you are right about the latter.
People can be as religious as they want, and there can be a role for religion in public life, but not for a specific religion and not for individual’s advocating specific religious views.
I am still waiting for a Christian to sneak up and say ‘Boo!’ and scare me, btw.
rilkefan
Note that the motion to change the filibuster rule would be met with another filibuster. To overcome that, the Senate leadership would have to break the Senate rules. This in fact is the real reason for “nuclear” in “nuclear option”. So your 4) is wrong, and hence I think your conclusion is incorrect too.
Katherine
The Senate Parliamentarian thinks they’re breaking the Senate rules–specifically, the rule that you need a 2/3 majority to amend the Senate Rules.
Katherine
What’s nuclear is the idea that 50 Senators + Cheney can rewrite the Senate rules.
I am totally convinced that the legislative filibuster is next…They’re already talking about bringing Bolton to the floor without a committee vote.
Without the committees & the filibuster–what’s left? The courage of moderate Republicans in defying their party leadership? Not real comforting.
Juliette
Boo!
You skerred, John?
;-)
Randolph Fritz
He’s right, John. Reality is, without the filibuster, a national minority party has no power at all; the USA is a single party state.
NOW do you understand the issue?
Randolph Fritz
By the way, you can read the whole of Gore’s speech here. I recommend it; I think conservatives here would find much to agree with. From my viewpoint, it is, indeed, too long and reasoned. But then, it’s Al Gore, and he believes that people can be swayed by facts.
John Cole
I already read it- and I agree with a great majority of what he said.