If, heaven forbid, you have not read enough about the filibuster, let me recommend that Joe Gandelman has a massive summary of reactions here and much more here from Jeff Goldstein, who is a pretty principled guy, and who writes:
There you go. A group of Senate
Sav
…and I think it is exceptionally short-sighted to get rid of something conservatives (real ones, not the loudmouths currently running things) will need in the future.
Those real conservatives—I’d like to know who you think those are—will not filibuster judges in the future. The filibuster has never been used to kill nominees until now.
And it is a removing of the power of the president if he now has to check with the Senate on who he nominates. The Senate’s job is to advise and consent, not approve who is to be advised and consented on.
Halffasthero
Actually, Say, the President is supposed to get advice and consent from the Senate. That is the checks and balance. The blue slips were torpedoed by Orrin Hatch. You are right that the filibuster has not been used this frequently. Mostly that is because the other mean for checking on judge selections was removed. How many times was the blue slip used? Since it is no longer available you are comparing apples and oranges on filibuster usage. How any times would the filibuster had been needed had the blue slip still been in place? You can’t have it both ways.
Halffasthero
pardon me – I meant Sav, not say. My glasses need some cleaning.
Sav
I’m sure the use of blue slips can be argued against. However, they were a common, if controversial, tactic used by both parties. Personally, I think one could also make a valid argument that voting judges down in committee shouldn’t be allowed either, but it is, and it has been used on both sides.
Filibustering to kill judicial nominees hasn’t occurred “less frequently,” but rather not at all. And it wasn’t but 10 years ago that 19 Democrats led by Joe Lieberman introduced legislation to end filibusters for all potential uses including against judges. Apparently Lieberman and the others had a change of heart.
Sav
BTW, I should have mentioned that Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution states that the president alone nominates and the Senate is to advise and consent the appointment of said nominees.
Halffasthero
“advise and consent”
Exactly. Bush never sought advice. Lindsay Graham very clearly commented on that last night. He stated that Bush needed to start seeking advice from the Senate.
START seeking
Sav
You—and apparently Graham—don’t understand, Halffast. The president doesn’t have to seek advise on who he nominates. It’s his prerogative to nominate who he wants.
Halffasthero
Yes it is his perogative, but the constitution DOES say advise. Since he didn’t, he got this blow-up for his reward. A fiercely divided hate filled situation. Considering VP Cheney was “concerned” about how divided the country was as well as your president, I find it incredible that they would then turn around and renominate people that were already found to be objectionable and then scream about how wrong it was. That sounds like hypocrisy. Coming from “Mr. Uniter” I am singularly unimpressed by his/your righteous indignation.
Halffasthero
Yes it is his perogative, but the constitution DOES say advise. Since he didn’t, he got this blow-up for his reward. A fiercely divided hate filled situation. Considering VP Cheney was “concerned” about how divided the country was as well as your president, I find it incredible that they would then turn around and renominate people that were already found to be objectionable and then scream about how wrong it was. That sounds like hypocrisy. Coming from “Mr. Uniter” I am singularly unimpressed by his/your righteous indignation.
Halffasthero
Damn it – waited to see if the message took. Checked and it didnt show. Resent and then naturally, both post. Sorry about that.
Libertine
There you go. A group of Senate
Kimmitt
The filibuster has never been used to kill nominees until now.
Even if this were true, which it is not, the power was always there and in the rules. If you think it’s being overused, Senate rules can be modified through a known process. You might even get me to agree.
Libertine
The nomination of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice of the SCOTUS in the 60’s was killed by the threat of filibuster by the GOP. The filibustering (or threats of filibusters) have been used by both sides for a long time.
Frist and the far right is guilty of revisionist history on the judicial filibuster issue.
vnjagvet
Last time I looked three conservative judges who have not hidden their views will be confirmed.
I think the President’s goal has been met for them.
How this plays out after the three of them are confirmed is unknowable at this point, but I predict more confirmations than predicted by most of my fellow conservatives who have “lost it” since 7:41 last night.
Sav
but the constitution DOES say advise. Since he didn’t, he got this blow-up for his reward.
Sorry, but the president does not need to consult the Senate on who he nominates. This “reward” is due to the fact that the Democrats don’t have the votes to defeat certain judges on the floor or even in committee.
Plenty of Republicans wanted no part of Bader-Ginsberg on the Supreme Court, but they gave her a vote. Despite the vitriol aimed at Bork and Thomas they too were allowed a vote by the Democrats. The difference between then and now? The Dems knew they could defeat them on the floor.
Even if this were true, which it is not,
Kimmitt, if you can list times when judges were defeated by filibuster, I’d certainly appreciate it.
Libertine
Plenty of Republicans wanted no part of Bader-Ginsberg on the Supreme Court, but they gave her a vote.
Clinton did seek the advice of the Senate (Hatch) on Bader-Ginsberg. And in the end she ended up getting roughly 90 votes to confirm. I hope Bush decides to consult with the Senate, as all past Presidents have done, before submitting someone for the next inevitable SCOTUS vacancy.
jdm
What is this “Senate rules should mean something“, John?
You wanna whine about Yet Another political group (one you particularily loathe) that is trying to modify the filibuster rules? Go right ahead. But you should save your Oh-So-Principled card for an argument that deserves it. The Democrats have been just as disgusting as the Republicans.
Randolph Fritz
The people who are so disgusted by this deal are authoritarians; it’s the “no” that upsets them. I can only wish more conservatives would repudiate authoritarianism.
These nominees all hold very extreme positions which you yourself have repudiated–based on their stated philosophies and histories–every one of them would abandon the employees of United Airlines without blinking an eye. The supermajority requirement is profoundly conservative–why do you support a straight up-or-down vote, when it is not conservative, or in your own political interest?
Randolph Fritz
The people who are so disgusted by this deal are authoritarians; it’s the “no” that upsets them. I can only wish more conservatives would repudiate authoritarianism.
These nominees all hold very extreme positions which you yourself have repudiated–based on their stated philosophies and histories–every one of them would abandon the employees of United Airlines without blinking an eye. The supermajority requirement is profoundly conservative–why do you support a straight up-or-down vote, when it is not conservative, or in your own political interest?
CaseyL
Bush supporters don’t give a fine feathered fuck about the country, the Constitution, or even the Republican Party, that’s why.
They’ve invested themselves totally in the Bush Personality Cult. All they care about is Bush “winning” whatever thing he wants at any particular moment.
Once the moment is passed, and Bush gets what he wanted, the issue of *what* he got vanishes. Like the war in Iraq. Bush got to pump his fists and prance around in a flight suit and act all “King of the World, Ma!” What’s happened in Iraq since, and continues to happen, and will go on happening, means absolutely nothing to the mouth-breathing members of the Bush Cult.
They’re not citizens. They’re sportsfans.
TJ Jackson
Interesting to see that people who disregard the Constitution are cast as defending freedom while those who do not thrash the Constitution are cast as authoritarian. Always entertaining to see such education and cool, calm logic deployed in such a mincing fashion. One wonders what these folks would be capable of if they had any knowledge about the issue instead of displaying their inner child.
Kimmitt
Projection:
Projection is one of the defense mechanisms identified by Freud and still acknowledged today. According to Freud, projection is when someone is threatened by or afraid of their own impulses so they attribute these impulses to someone else. For example, a person in psychoanalysis may insist to the therapist that he knows the therapist wants to rape some women, when in fact the client has these awful feelings to rape the woman.
Sav
Kimmitt, as long as you’re here….
Howard Dean was on Meet the Press Sunday. Tim Russert read back a litany of Dean’s rhetoric directed at Republicans. One of the things he reminded Dean of was that he claimed Republicans were brain dead. Dean, while refuting other things on the show, did not refute that he said that.
There’s the transcript.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7924139/
Kimmitt
Sav, read the transcript:
Here’s the point I was trying–as most of these things are taken by the Republicans, spun around Washington saying this in a one sentence, which I generally had said. But then they’re sort of manipulated around, saying this is the kind of thing he said.
Context is everything. Was he serious or was he at least somewhat joking? If Laura Bush can make horse cock jokes, maybe Howard Dean can get a little hyperbolic?
Sav
Kimmitt, I’m not sure what your point is. You originally questioned whether Dean made the comment, citing the lack of a transcript.
The graf you highlight isn’t even in response to the “brain dead” question; it’s in response to Dean simulating concaine snorting to mock Limbaugh.
As far as hyperbole, I would say that’s an understatement for Dean’s rhetoric. And of course Dean doesn’t believe Republicans are actually brain dead: he was simply being a jerk as he’s apt to be.
Kimmitt
You originally questioned whether Dean made the comment, citing the lack of a transcript.
I questioned:
1) The actual text of any comment.
2) The context around the comment.
3) The meaning of the comment in context.
None of these three have been addressed.
And of course Dean doesn’t believe Republicans are actually brain dead: he was simply being a jerk as he’s apt to be.
…and that’s why I love Dean, because he actually gets pissed off at the institutional rot and moral foulness of the Republican Party as currently embodied in its corrupt, thuggish leadership.
Sav
In our exchange you questioned whether Dean really made the comment at all. You said that the Washington Post’s reporting of it was irrelevant without a transcript.
By the way, I like Dean too but for different reasons.
Kimmitt
The Washington Post’s reporting on this issue really is irrelevant without a transcript. Russert didn’t provide a transcript of the original remarks, either. In the absence of anything even vaguely resembling context, this discussion is pointless.
Sav
So, are you still saying we don’t know if Dean made the remark, or we do and you just don’t care?
Kimmitt
I’m saying I don’t know what remark Dean made. I know that Dean made a remark which was characterized by a source which I find non-credible in a certain way. I do not know its actual text, its context, or the meaning of the remark within its context.
Kimmitt
I’m sorry to be so stubborn on this, but my side got burned hard on the whole “Al Gore invented the internet” thing, and I’m not inclined to give the benefit of the doubt.