The filibuster...
The filibuster is a long-practiced tradition in the Senate to prevent issues from coming to a vote. They happen all the time at both state and federal levels of government. The actual "rules" behind filibusters are now being debated - and a lot of partisan rhetoric is flying (big surprise).
There are rules in the Constitution regarding super-majorities. A super-majority (60 out of 100 votes) is required for certain things to happen in the Senate. Unfortunately, the Democrats are trotting this out and claiming that a super-majority is required to end a filibuster and force a vote. There is nothing in the Constitution regarding super-majorities where filibusters or judicial nominations are concerned. In fact, the founding fathers provided nothing for filibusters in general. This right to endless debate evolved in the Senate through the 1700s and 1800s. It is now part of the Senate's own formal rules (Rule 22). It guarantees unlimited debate and requires cloture (a 60 percent vote) to close debate. There is the paradox.
The Democrats are claiming that the Senate rules (specifically Rule 22) should supercede the Constitution itself. Judicial nominees were supposed to be voted in/out by simple majority according to the Constitution. By imposing a filibuster and Rule 22, the Senate is forcing nominations to be approved by super-majority.
I am not commenting on any nominee's qualifications. Honestly, I don't know enough about this subject to offer any comment. I'm simply pointing out that one of the few "loopholes" in the way the Constitution laid out the foundation for our federal government is being exercised for partisan politics.
This is not just to point a finger at Democrats. When Clinton was President, the Republicans used this exact tactic to block the appointment of Richard Paez for four years before he was finally approved by a 59-39 vote. The Democrats at that time were outraged that the filibuster be used in such a manner and called for the use of unlimited debate to be restricted or abolished. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the same arguments are coming out of the opposite mouths.
I have read partisan postings. There are claims that the filibuster has never been used to try to prevent judicial appointments. Horseshit. There are claims that they have never tried to prevent an appointment where there was majority support. Horseshit. Remember Paez? You all know I'm a Conservative - just not to the point of irrationality.
All of this posturing, meeting, discussing, and general screwing around costs money - our money. While the Senate is in a filibuster, they can't do any other business. How efficient. I'm sure there have been endless lunch meetings, dinner meetings, meetings over drinks, etc, etc. - all at taxpayers expense - that allow these Washington fucks to play their political games. Enough already.
There are rules in the Constitution regarding super-majorities. A super-majority (60 out of 100 votes) is required for certain things to happen in the Senate. Unfortunately, the Democrats are trotting this out and claiming that a super-majority is required to end a filibuster and force a vote. There is nothing in the Constitution regarding super-majorities where filibusters or judicial nominations are concerned. In fact, the founding fathers provided nothing for filibusters in general. This right to endless debate evolved in the Senate through the 1700s and 1800s. It is now part of the Senate's own formal rules (Rule 22). It guarantees unlimited debate and requires cloture (a 60 percent vote) to close debate. There is the paradox.
The Democrats are claiming that the Senate rules (specifically Rule 22) should supercede the Constitution itself. Judicial nominees were supposed to be voted in/out by simple majority according to the Constitution. By imposing a filibuster and Rule 22, the Senate is forcing nominations to be approved by super-majority.
I am not commenting on any nominee's qualifications. Honestly, I don't know enough about this subject to offer any comment. I'm simply pointing out that one of the few "loopholes" in the way the Constitution laid out the foundation for our federal government is being exercised for partisan politics.
This is not just to point a finger at Democrats. When Clinton was President, the Republicans used this exact tactic to block the appointment of Richard Paez for four years before he was finally approved by a 59-39 vote. The Democrats at that time were outraged that the filibuster be used in such a manner and called for the use of unlimited debate to be restricted or abolished. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the same arguments are coming out of the opposite mouths.
I have read partisan postings. There are claims that the filibuster has never been used to try to prevent judicial appointments. Horseshit. There are claims that they have never tried to prevent an appointment where there was majority support. Horseshit. Remember Paez? You all know I'm a Conservative - just not to the point of irrationality.
All of this posturing, meeting, discussing, and general screwing around costs money - our money. While the Senate is in a filibuster, they can't do any other business. How efficient. I'm sure there have been endless lunch meetings, dinner meetings, meetings over drinks, etc, etc. - all at taxpayers expense - that allow these Washington fucks to play their political games. Enough already.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home