The Filibuster: Protecting the minority or impeding democracy?

[dotcoma]

With the recent compromise between Republicans and Democrats to keep the tradition of the filibuster around what do you think of the use of such a senate tactic?

For our non-American friends, or those in general who do not know what a filibuster is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fillibuster

I think that it is a perfectly legitimate way a minority party in government can prevent extremely controversial decisions from being made by the majority-simply because they control the Senate. Besides, to counter this, 3/5'ths majority vote can prevent a filibuster, so if it is truly a reasonable request then perhaps it can avoid prevention.

In terms of current events, I think the filibuster has not been overused. Hundreds of judicial nominees have been approved, while only ten have been stopped via the filibuster.

Opinions?

[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.

[dotcoma]

Osborn, must you turn every topic into your cause? Discuss what is in my post or do not post in it please.

[ericsp23]

Our founding fathers never intended for American Democracy to turn into a tyranny of the majority, and the fillibuster has been instrumental in preventing this throughout the history of this country. I applaude the moderates in the Senate for making this deal and preventing what would have been a horrible blow to democracy.

One correction on dotcoma's original post: I believe you only have to have 60 votes to break a fillibuster, not a 2/3's majority.

[dotcoma]

Yes, thanks for that correction. It is 3/5th's (usually 60).

[The Analog Kid]

Our founding fathers never intended for American Democracy to turn into a tyranny of the majority, and the fillibuster has been instrumental in preventing this throughout the history of this country. I applaude the moderates in the Senate for making this deal and preventing what would have been a horrible blow to democracy.

Such overblown drama and abuse of history.




There is no mention whatsoever of the filibuster or judicial filibuster in the Constitution. One would think that if it was so vitally important, the founders would've indeed added it.
In fact, the Constitution is very clear where supermajority's are needed and the confirmation of judges is not one of those instances.

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the minority to block a presidential appointments. All the Constitution requires is a simple majority of Senators in favor to confirm an appointee.


In regards to "tyranny of the majority" you are referring to, the point of having the Senate, to prevent big states from ruling over small states, giving the small states an equal footing with the big ones.


The use of judicial filibusters is now a Democrat abusive practice that has not occurred in the history of our republic. Bush has the lowest confirmation rate of any Presidents in regards to Appellate court nominees as a result of this abuse by the Democrats.

The judicial filibuster has had very little role in our history.

Of course all the leftists will chime in with Abe Fortas.

Indeed, Abe fortas was filibustered but he was filibustered in a bipartisan manner stemming from corruption charges. Again, different from the current partisan manner employed by Democrats.

So we have the judicial filibuster being used once in the first 212 years of our Republic.
And now we have the judicial filibuster being used 18 times, affecting 10 nominees, in the past 4 years of our Republic.

To make it easy for our liberal readers;

The first 212 years, 1 filibuster.
The last 4 years, 18 filibusters.

Figure it out.

There is no longstanding tradition of the judicial filibuster and to eliminate it would have no detrimental effect since it has not been a longstanding tradition that has been used in our history.

The House of Representatives, at one time, had a silent filibuster in which the Democrats abused. The rule was changed and the silent filibuster was eliminated.
No harm was done.

Robert (KKK) Byrd when majority leader in the Senate changed Senate Rules on 4 separate occaisions.
The Republic didn't suffer.

The Democrats changed Senate rules in 1975, reducing the number of Senators needed to over-ride a filibuster, from 67 to 60.
The Country didn't perish.

Actually, all rule changes in regards to the filibuster, have occurred when Democrats were in charge of the Senate. Where are the outraged Democrats?

BTW, the elimination of the the judicial filibuster has no bearing on the legislative filibuster which is indeed a longstanding practice and tradition in the Senate.

Apparently for leftists, it's quite OK for Democrats to change Senate rules but not Republicans.

[tinybear]

The filibuster is an abuse of the legislative process. If an attorney tries to do that in court, he would be in contempt. I'm amazed that this sort of thing is considered normal in Congress and absolutely shocked that many consider it to be noble.

[tinybear]

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/...82.htm&sc=1110

Here's what happens when the tyranny of the minority is unabated.

[Chris the Chees]

The Filibuster tactic is just another reason why American politics are a joke... But at least senators must have a completely huge knowledge of random rubbish, rather than running the US.

Indeed, the US was created on now morally bankrupt system. The idea that a country is not democratic, even designed to not be democratic, is astounding. As the quote goes: -

"The country was founded on the principle that the primary role of government is to protect property from the majority, and so it remains."

Remember guys, this is a universal truth in American politics. The rich, those who possess property in abundance, get far more out of the government than you do. They are theives, stealing political power which legitimatly belongs to the people.

[belverron]

"Tryanny of the minority." Cute.

"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."

Full article at http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...mment-opinions
I wouldn't go there, though, it's mainly trash.
Point being, there are reasons Bush's nominees are being filibustered. They're crazy.

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."
http://saveourcourts.civilrights.org...ees/brown.html

Another site:
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_524.pdf

[belverron]

Quote by: Chris the Chees The Filibuster tactic is just another reason why American politics are a joke... But at least senators must have a completely huge knowledge of random rubbish, rather than running the US. Indeed, the US was created on now morally bankrupt system. The idea that a country is not democratic, even designed to not be democratic, is astounding. As the quote goes: - "The country was founded on the principle that the primary role of government is to protect property from the majority, and so it remains." Remember guys, this is a universal truth in American politics. The rich, those who possess property in abundance, get far more out of the government than you do. They are theives, stealing political power which legitimatly belongs to the people.

I'm grateful for the buffer from the common people a republic provides. Most people are stupid. The Founding Fathers recognized this fact.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: belverron I'm grateful for the buffer from the common people a republic provides. Most people are stupid. The Founding Fathers recognized this fact.

Some of the founding fathers were stupid as well. I don't know if you have read in any detail on the life and beliefs of Jefferson for example. The man was a complete buffoon, an idealist of the most ridiculous stance. He had foolish beliefs regarding morality, and allowed these beliefs to effect his political and economic judgement. He believed that Americans should shun industrialisation and embrace the simple life as farmer, away from the corrupt influence of eurpean practises.

You can thank your lucky stars that there were men of sense like Alexander Hamilton to force compromise from idiots such as Jefferson.

If the founding fathers considered the people stupid, when many of them shared the views of the likes of Jefferson, then god forbid how ignorant the American people must be!

I reject your enire argument, I think the vast majority of American citizens would do a lot better in office, with the help of advisors, than a great many of the morons you've had in positions of power.

The fact of the matter is the founding figures did not place such restrictions on the people out of some alturistic far-sightedness, that people aren't smart enough to make decisions for them selves, but out of fear of losing their position of advantage, power and ability to exploit.

[fedfem]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Some of the founding fathers were stupid as well. I don't know if you have read in any detail on the life and beliefs of Jefferson for example. The man was a complete buffoon, an idealist of the most ridiculous stance. He had foolish beliefs regarding morality, and allowed these beliefs to effect his political and economic judgement. He believed that Americans should shun industrialisation and embrace the simple life as farmer, away from the corrupt influence of eurpean practises. You can thank your lucky stars that there were men of sense like Alexander Hamilton to force compromise from idiots such as Jefferson. If the founding fathers considered the people stupid, when many of them shared the views of the likes of Jefferson, then god forbid how ignorant the American people must be! I reject your enire argument, I think the vast majority of American citizens would do a lot better in office, with the help of advisors, than a great many of the morons you've had in positions of power. The fact of the matter is the founding figures did not place such restrictions on the people out of some alturistic far-sightedness, that people aren't smart enough to make decisions for them selves, but out of fear of losing their position of advantage, power and ability to exploit.

You are way off. Jefferson was brilliant and did in fact look centuries ahead.

[IndieC]

Wow, that's interesting... he looked way ahead... Are you saying that he is the idol of all Ahmish people? To reject technology in the US nowadays must be pretty hard, imagine all those people who would have to be employed for the stock market to keep going, let alone all the industries. I think if that happened, then the whole economy would go pop! Wouldn't that be good for the world? No stupid US belief of their being, or your being depending who is reading, the world police. You know, "Team America: World Police" is in fact only a slight exagerration of what the US does nowadays, you take away Tean from everytime Team America is mentionned and you get the message the writers want to get across.

I say: Damn shame Jefferson ain't President now, it would make the world a much better place...

As for filibusters, i think its a stupid thing for people to do. You should have rules preventing these things from happening. It just shows, yet again, the incompetence of the US government and its legislative process.

[Chris the Chees]

You are way off. Jefferson was brilliant and did in fact look centuries ahead.

I challenge you to look up the debates between those who supported Alexander Hamilton and Jefferson and co.

I gurantee that you will see that everything I said is verified, absolutly.

[tman_ndsu08]

I think it's important to establish the difference between the two definitions of the word "minority" that are being used interchangably.

The true definition of minority applies to race. IE, "black people are a racial minority in the US".

A senate minority has nothing to do with the above definition. Here is the definition of a senate minority: "the party that has the lower number of senators in the senate because the people of the US gave their party less votes".

With the last two presidential elections being nearly a 50-50 split, it shows you that there is no such thing as a true party minority. There exist exactly the same number of people in the US who are Democrats as there are Republicans.

A senate minority deserves no special privledges whatsoever! NONE!

The filibuster is a sore loser technique and is simply pathetic. Get rid of it!

[ericsp23]

Quote by: The Analog Kid Such overblown drama ...

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. 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.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: ericsp23 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. 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.

The people demand change.

Otherwise, the number of Republican politicians elected would not be where it is today.

Let the Republicans have their changes for now. If the people decide that those changes are actually bad, then they will elect Democrats in 2008 who will reverse the changes.

[tinybear]

Well...is it that simple? Once a judge is appointed, how easily can he/she be removed?

[tman_ndsu08]

I believe the judges are a lifetime appointment. But most of them are old anyway, so it can't really last that long (maybe 20 years tops). So the turnover rate is high.

If the American people don't like the Republican judges, they'll elect Democrats to get Democratic judges in there.

Yes, it's that simple.