The Filibuster: Protecting the minority or impeding democracy?

[lsbskins1]

The filibuster is not some stupid device that we should be ashamed exists. It has a very important place in the opperation of a democracy. It stops a runaway train. It brings attention to issues that might otherwise simply roll past an unsuspecting populace and forces the majority to conduct business under the full illumination of the daylight. Please recognize that there would have been no compromise were it not for the fact that the attention of the country was on this issue and as time wore on, it was more and more obvious where public sentiment was. The Republicans who compromised did so because they were willing to take the pulse of the electorate and not move forward with something seen as beyond the expectations of that electorate. Racists filibustered the passing of civil rights legislation in the 60's. That filibuster did not stop the legislation. It did not stop it because in the slowing down process, it became obvious that most of the country thought it was well past time for that legislation. Any filibuster can not go on forever. It will force attention eventually and that is it's purpose. If popular sentiment is behind the cause it will force compromise. If it is not, it will be ended or destroy the political career of those who are behind it. Either way, democracy wins.

[ericsp23]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Yes, it's that simple.

Unfortunatly its not that simple.

Let say hypothetically that the scenario I described above has occurred, and all three branches of the government are under the control of a faction that is more concerned with holding onto power than in upholding the values on which the country was founded. There is virtually no limit to what these people can do. With the right people in strategic positions in all three branches of government they can virtually shut down democracy and institute an oligarchy, and there would be nothing short of armed rebillion that anyone could do about it. These things could happen before the opposition ever got a chance to regain control.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: lsbskins1 It stops a runaway train.

Americans are well aware of what they like and don't like. They are the only ones who are going to stop any trains by their election powers.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: ericsp23 Unfortunatly its not that simple. Let say hypothetically that the scenario I described above has occurred, and all three branches of the government are under the control of a faction that is more concerned with holding onto power than in upholding the values on which the country was founded. There is virtually no limit to what these people can do. With the right people in strategic positions in all three branches of government they can virtually shut down democracy and institute an oligarchy, and there would be nothing short of armed rebillion that anyone could do about it. These things could happen before the opposition ever got a chance to regain control.

The people of the country hold the power, not the politicians. If the politicians piss them off, they won't vote for them!

If the politicians do anything really stupid like abolish voting then the people will rebell.

[ericsp23]

Wouldn't it be better to have some kind of protection in place to ensure that it never comes to that though?

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 The people of the country hold the power, not the politicians. If the politicians piss them off, they won't vote for them! If the politicians do anything really stupid like abolish voting then the people will rebell.

Hey... I usually hate to be this harsh, but do you have a functioning brain cell left? Why should the populace wait until armed rebellion is necessary? Do you think the filibuster was invented in the last 30 years? It is one of the tools that exist so that we can fix the problem BEFORE we loose our rights.

[Sonart]

Quote by: ericsp23 that is more concerned with holding onto power than in upholding the values on which the country was founded.

Oh please, spare us the violins, ok, eric? The GOP held up vastly more Clinton judicial nominees, so obviously they - and you, if you supported them - could give a flying rip about the "values on which the country was founded". The only thing they care about is that it's their guy getting bushwhacked and the process by which Democrats are doing it. What monumental hypocricy.

.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: ericsp23 Wouldn't it be better to have some kind of protection in place to ensure that it never comes to that though?

I believe it was Franklin who said that those who put saftey before liberty deserve neither.

Or something like that.

It's the damned truth.

[ericsp23]

Sonart,
I'm not sure that you and I are on different sides of this argument. I can't understand the hostility in your post.

Based on what I've written here (or in any other thread for that matter) what would make you think that I support the GOP in any way? Please read through all of my posts in this thread.

[lsbskins1]

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

This would be an arguement against the Patriot Act, not against the filibuster.

[ericsp23]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 I believe it was Franklin who said that those who put saftey before liberty deserve neither.

Words I've always agreed with. I fail to see how they apply to this discussion however.

The democratic process that you describe as a justification for ending the fillibuster can be used against you as well. If the minority party is seen as abusing the fillibuster then they will continue to lose elections and will eventually lose even the ability to maintain a fillibuster.
It makes more sense to continue to allow the fillibuster and prevent a situation in which a group of power hungry people can abuse the system than to forbid it and hope that if the situation ever arises, the party in power won't use their power to prevent the democratic process from happening.

[tman_ndsu08]

If the minority party is seen as abusing the fillibuster then they will continue to lose elections and will eventually lose even the ability to maintain a fillibuster.

That's exactly what has happened here. The majority of the filibusters have been only very recently.

The majority is tired of the minority abusing this power and would've taken it away from the Dems if there hadn't been a compromise that got in the way.


If the people didn't like that, they'd elect the Dems next time who could put the 'buster back in play.

[ericsp23]

The reason there was a compromise was because moderate Republicans feared a popular backlash against them if they voted to end the fillibuster. That seems to indicate that the people do not want to see the fillibuster go away.
Polling data seems to back this up as well.
http://www.pollingreport.com/congress.htm#Misc

American's overwhelmingly want to see both parties work together to agree on which judges should sit on the bench.

[Sonart]

Quote by: ericsp23 I'm not sure that you and I are on different sides of this argument. I can't understand the hostility in your post.

Sorry, eric, you are correct. Mine was a kneejerk reaction to your phrase, ""values on which the country was founded" which has been a GOP catch-phrase for defying the will of President Bush. They've used it so often in that context, after having previously, and to a far greater extent, thwarted Clinton's nominees, that I made an assumption. My bad.

.

[The Analog Kid]

"In George W. Bush's first term, he got 201 of his federal judge nominees confirmed, more than Bill Clinton in his first four years. But because Democrats brought out the filibuster or threatened it for 10 other nominees — Brown among them — Republicans are ready to trash the judicial filibuster itself to push through every single one of Bush's nominees, beginning with Owen and Brown."

Focus on the issue here. We are talking about Federal Appellate Court nominees.
Comparing apples to apples is much more informative.

Both Clinton and Bush, in their first terms, had 2 years of Republicans in Control of the Senate and 2 years of Democrats in control of the Senate.
In regards to Federal Appellate Court nominees Clintons confirmation rate was well about 90%, Bush's is around 50%, the lowest of ANY President.

The strategy was to deny the Appellate courts, and the Supreme, because they are the most important. Appellate courts make rulings and overturn lower courts all the time that the Supremes never touch .

Now that we've focused and identified the real issue....Federal Appellate Court nominees you can focus on a better response.

I wouldn't go there, though, it's mainly trash. Point being, there are reasons Bush's nominees are being filibustered. They're crazy.

Prove it.

Let's look at a little blip about Brown from the other side, shall we? "A review of California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown's record to date raises serious questions and grave concerns about her persistent and disturbing hostility to affirmative action, civil rights, the rights of people with disabilities, workers' rights, and criminal rights. In addition, Brown has often been the lone justice to dissent on the California Supreme Court, illustrating that her judicial philosophy is outside the mainstream. Not only does she show an inability to dispassionately review cases, her opinions are based on extremist ideology that ignores judicial precedent, including that set by the U.S. Supreme Court."

Notice the broad sweeping accusations without any specifics.
Show us specific court rulings that are "crazy".

FYI, she has a qualified rating from the liberal ABA and was overwhelmingly elected to her position by over 70% of the voters in California, hardly a Red state.

If these nominees are indeed "crazy" then they would be rejected in an up or down vote.

Out of curiosity, is Ruth Bader Ginsberg an extremist leftist?

Lastly, please tell us why nominees don't deserve an up or down vote?

The founding fathers set up a system of checks and balances that have worked brilliantly for over 2 centuries at limiting the ability of any one person or faction from gaining too much power.

Checks and balances refers to one branch of government keeping the others in check and vice versa.

The only weakness in the system is that those checks and balances have actually have to be enforced. We now have a situation where a political party which is in no way accountable to anyone but its own members can use their control of 2 branches of the government to abuse the system and weaken the checks and balances that were put in place to protect us. Now, we can argue all day on whether or not this is happening now with the Republican party, but you cannot deny that the potential for abuse is there. The fillibuster against judicial nominees is the only way to ensure that the last remaining branch of the federal government which is not completely dominated by the GOP remains independant and capable of checking the power of the other 2 branches.

Why don't you liberals just try to win some elections for a change?

The Republican party is ultimately held responsible by the people, the voters.
If they are so horrible and more corrupt than Democrats they will lose elections. How little faith you have in this Republic.

Again, in the first 212 years the judicial filibuster was used once.
In the past 4 years it's been used 18 times.

Who is abusing things here?

The filibuster is not some stupid device that we should be ashamed exists. It has a very important place in the opperation of a democracy.

Stay focused. We are discussing the judicial filibuster, not the legislative filibuster. The judicial filibuster was used only once in the first 212 years in our history.
There is no sacred tradition or place in our history in regards to the judicial filibuster unless you want to count the last 4 years where it has been abused 18 times.

Let say hypothetically that the scenario I described above has occurred, and all three branches of the government are under the control of a faction that is more concerned with holding onto power than in upholding the values on which the country was founded. There is virtually no limit to what these people can do. With the right people in strategic positions in all three branches of government they can virtually shut down democracy and institute an oligarchy, and there would be nothing short of armed rebillion that anyone could do about it. These things could happen before the opposition ever got a chance to regain control.

Oh stop the nonsense. Upholding the values is subjective, you don't get to determine what these values are. The voters as a whole decide. It's called democracy.
If the Republicans are so corrupt and evil, why do they continue to win federal and state elecitons while Democrats continue to lose?

Wouldn't it be better to have some kind of protection in place to ensure that it never comes to that though?

Your contempt for democracy is noted.

Hey... I usually hate to be this harsh, but do you have a functioning brain cell left? Why should the populace wait until armed rebellion is necessary? Do you think the filibuster was invented in the last 30 years? It is one of the tools that exist so that we can fix the problem BEFORE we loose our rights.

Speaking of Brain cells, are you aware that the judicial filibuster was only used once in the first 212 years of our republic?

Oh please, spare us the violins, ok, eric? The GOP held up vastly more Clinton judicial nominees, so obviously they - and you, if you supported them - could give a flying rip about the "values on which the country was founded". The only thing they care about is that it's their guy getting bushwhacked and the process by which Democrats are doing it. What monumental hypocricy.

You are forgetting several key things here. The Republicans were in the majority and held up Clinton nominees in committee.

Thats what majority's get to do and thats why it's important to be in the majority. Both sides have done it and it's no fun when your guy is in power facing a Senate controlled by the opposite party.
You need to recognize the difference between minority and majority.
You are not comparing like things here.

The democratic process that you describe as a justification for ending the fillibuster can be used against you as well. If the minority party is seen as abusing the fillibuster then they will continue to lose elections and will eventually lose even the ability to maintain a fillibuster.

Tom Daschle was removed over his obstructionist tactics. Democrats have lost seats in the Senate in the past 2 elections over this obstruction issue.
Why do they believe the outcome will be any different in the 06 elections?

Sorry, eric, you are correct. Mine was a kneejerk reaction to your phrase, ""values on which the country was founded" which has been a GOP catch-phrase for defying the will of President Bush.

The GOP far more reflects the values the country was founded upon.
It's the liberals who have to appoint judges that make rulings that overturn the will of the people.

They've used it so often in that context, after having previously, and to a far greater extent, thwarted Clinton's nominees, that I made an assumption. My bad.

Again. Republicans were in the majority and held these nominees up in committee. Currently Democrats are in the minority, the nominees have been voted out of committee and have the necessary votes to be confirmed.

Why do you advocate denying these judges an up or down vote?
That's not very Democratic of you and definetly un-American.

[lsbskins1]

Analog-

I will try not to go on and on, but in response to some of your points...

Do you seriously believe that the filibuster is a tool that can only be used in situations acceptable to the majority? What would it's point be? The option was obviously in the rules for use in this manner or it would not have been used. The "law was on the books" and you are the "law and order" type are you not? Would you argue that because prosecutors rarely charge people under an existing statute that they should be villified if they find that a crime had been committed that could and should be prosecuted under that statute.
I will say it again, if the American people were truely behind these nominees and were truely with you on the issue of limiting the use of the filibuster, the compromise would have never happened. The filibuster would have failed.

As far as all of your arguements about how the Democrats keep losing and the Republican Party is obviously the overwhelming choice of the "people", take a look at your margin of victory in the last two Presidential races, look at the fact that you have a fairly slim majority in the Senate and you may need to walk in fear over your House majority. The polling on Congress is worse now for the incumbents than it was just before the "revolution" that put you in control of that institution. Your policies are not that popular. And reguardless of whether you are willing to admit it or not, your party won the White House and ran in the last election almost exclusively on the "who do you trust to win the war on terror" issue. You have NO POPULAR MANDATE on the issues that this debate turns on. That is why the filibuster tactic was successful.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/t...ll-results.htm

http://people-press.org/reports/disp...3?ReportID=243

[The Analog Kid]

Do you seriously believe that the filibuster is a tool that can only be used in situations acceptable to the majority? What would it's point be? The option was obviously in the rules for use in this manner or it would not have been used. The "law was on the books" and you are the "law and order" type are you not? Would you argue that because prosecutors rarely charge people under an existing statute that they should be villified if they find that a crime had been committed that could and should be prosecuted under that statute. I will say it again, if the American people were truely behind these nominees and were truely with you on the issue of limiting the use of the filibuster, the compromise would have never happened. The filibuster would have failed.

Given that it was only used once in the first 212 years of our republic I'd say that it's largely been irrelivant as a tool. It was used once in the first 212 years, in a bipartisan manner, because of a corrupt judge.
This rule is now being abused and you cannot deny this. 18 times in 4 years. That is abuse, especially compared to the first 212 years.
If rules are being abused I have no objection to changing rules.

As far as all of your arguements about how the Democrats keep losing and the Republican Party is obviously the overwhelming choice of the "people", take a look at your margin of victory in the last two Presidential races, look at the fact that you have a fairly slim majority in the Senate and you may need to walk in fear over your House majority. The polling on Congress is worse now for the incumbents than it was just before the "revolution" that put you in control of that institution. Your policies are not that popular. And reguardless of whether you are willing to admit it or not, your party won the White House and ran in the last election almost exclusively on the "who do you trust to win the war on terror" issue. You have NO POPULAR MANDATE on the issues that this debate turns on. That is why the filibuster tactic was successful.

Sorry to inform you but the Republican party is not my party. I vote based on who the person is and their philosophy, not what party they belong too.
Too many people, including most members here have this Democrats Good/Republicans Bad mentality. That is far more damaging than any silly rule change in the Senate.

You are free to hold your above opinions, I don't agree. We can look at federal or state elections, the trend is clear and the trend is that Republicans are increasing and Democrats are not. It's just a fact. If I were a Democrat I'd start looking in the mirror and asking why this is happening instead of blaming Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.

[OberonDOtherseid]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready If both major parties would worry about the Constitution, and not their pet special intrest needs, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Neither party sticks up for the people, and neither would remotely classify as a minority party except by the strictest application of the term.

The beauty of the constitution is how it changes according to the times, Osborn. It was written that way for a reason.

[Starboy]

Was this a trick question? The filibuster does both. It protects the minority and it impedes democracy. What people do not seem to understand is that we have a republic, not a democracy. The founding fathers understood that democracies end up in tyranny. No one wants a democracy. That is what prevailed before the constitution and they had laws that made it illegal to be a Baptist in some states. As Jefferson said in his first presidential inaugural speech:

Quote by: Jefferson All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

Any majority that forced its will on the minority to the point where they needed to filibuster is probably not being reasonable nor are they respecting the equal rights of the minority.

Starboy

[The Analog Kid]

Quote by: OberonDOtherseid The beauty of the constitution is how it changes according to the times, Osborn. It was written that way for a reason.

How does the Constitution change with the times?

You can't be of the "living breathing" mindset, can you?