Quickest Route for an Obama Supreme Court Nominee is Ending the Filibuster

Submitted by mark karlin on Sun, 05/03/2009 - 6:51am.

EditorBlog

THE BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG

By Mark Karlin

In case you were on vacation, the Obama budget that the GOP threatened to filibuster passed the House and Senate in short order last week.

As is generally the case, most of Obama's plans for a government for the 21st Century pass in the House only to get obstructed in the Senate by chronic threats of a filibuster. (The "Stimulus" package was an exception, but it achieved cloture only at the great cost of concessions to three Republican senators -- including the elimination of hundreds of billions of dollars to develop ways to deal with a pandemic flu crisis.)

But the "care for America's future" budget passed because the Dems in the Senate used -- and Obama publicly endorsed -- a rule that allowed them to pass a supplemental budget by a simple majority vote (known as "reconciliation"). Of course, the ever-shrinking and nonsensical GOP Senate leadership threatened that such a maneuver would end chances of "bipartisanship" (that's a laugh there) and lead to a range war in Congress.

It didn't of course. The Republicans are always the big bad wolf: "I'll huff, and I'll puff, and I'll blow your house down." But they are all bluster, and Harry Reid, Dem Senate Majority Leader ususally caves in; but not this time.

What this shows is that the Dems need to do what is in the best interest of progress for this country and eliminate the filibuster -- as BuzzFlash has mentioned many times before. There is no reason for Obama to have to appoint anyone but the most qualified person to the highest court in the land. The Republicans -- in skillfully orchestrated campaigns -- stuck us with Alito and Roberts in Bush's presidency -- and we'll pay for it for years to come.

The Republicans always go nuts about Supreme Court and federal bench nominees, because it is their backstop to prevent criminal indictments, to preserve social and economic inequality, to foster religion in government, to thwart the will of Congress, to violate voting rights, and to steal elections if necessary -- as was infamously accomplished on the Presidential level in 2000.

But for all their sound and fury, the Republican leadership knows -- as the Bush Administration proved for 8 years -- that it is very hard to dislodge laws that are passed or people that are placed in office.

Let Mitch "Money Bags" McConnell and John "Man Tan" Boehner and Eric "Hypocrite" Cantor shout and scream as the Senate Dems vote to eliminate the filibuster. They know that once it is killed, it's all over for them.

To the victors go the spoils; the GOP has proven that.

There is no need to wring our hands over the next Supreme Court nominee. Arlen Specter's politically necessitated (for self-survival) defection won't end the filibuster because you have a handful of DINO's (Democrats in Name Only) who will side with the Republicans on many issues and vote to filibuster if it is an option.

End the destructive process of a small band of Neo-Confederate dead head GOP senators holding the fate of the Republic in their diminishing number of hands.

End the filibuster and fast track the Supreme Court and America's future foreward.

THE BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG

Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version

End the Filibuster?

Submitted by VettaKing on Sun, 05/03/2009 - 10:03pm.

How about ending the Senate? Wyoming does not deserve the same representation as CA. The senate is already an undemocratic tyranny of the minority. How many good laws pass the House, are supported by the people, and then go to the Senate to die? Just look at the mortgage law that died in the Senate last week. The Repukelicans and a handful of DINO's thwart the will of the people time and time again. When the Repuke controlled Senate threatened the "nuclear option" a few years ago it was a joke. Do you really think anything would have changed if they had done it? If anything without the filibuster they would have been thrown out of office sooner. Harry Reid is too big of a chickenshit to have actually stopped anything in the first place. Today though, the Repukes are "really" in the minority and they are traitors to the people. They ABUSE the filibuster at every turn. End the filibuster today. End the Senate tomorrow.

Treasonous Repugnicants!

Submitted by Pete Ross on Sun, 05/03/2009 - 3:33pm.

The capability for a diminishing handful of ideologue obstructionists who are openly contemptuous of our Constitution and vote consistently to place the welfare of their party above that of our country should be eliminated. The filibuster should be eliminated.

And as soon as ...

Submitted by Yman on Sun, 05/03/2009 - 12:39pm.

... the Republicans have a majority, Mark will be posting articles about the importance of the filibuster and screaming for the Democrats to use it.

Nuclear option?

Submitted by fdarbe on Sun, 05/03/2009 - 11:51am.

That is what we called it when a Republican majority road rough shod over Democrats. Back then, invoking that option was called a violation of the rights of the minority. No majority is permanent. Eventually, Republicans or some other party will take control of the Senate. The filibuster should remain otherwise we are just a bunch of hypocrites.

Filibuster & Political Parties in Constitution?

Submitted by mcartri on Sun, 05/03/2009 - 2:21pm.

Been rereading the Constitution & am having trouble finding the Flibuster Rule or political party section. The hypocrites are the ones who actually keep rehashing the concept there are two-major parties. There is but one: The American Corporate Party(ACP). It's composed of the wholly owned wing(GOP) & the mostly owned wing(DEMS). Harry Reid & his fellow DEMS do NOT cave & are NOT spineless. They represent their owners, who buy loyality with legalized bribes(Campaign Contributions). Congress represents Congress. Money owns Congress. WE are merely those folk Lincoln mentions at the end of his Gettysburg Address.

Be Careful What You Wish For

Submitted by neoconned on Sun, 05/03/2009 - 11:22am.

Ending the filibuster will erode what remains of the Republican power, which will enhance the prospects that they will become the fringe element in our body politic that they deserve to be. But as you note in your post, there are always unintended consequences. For instance:

* I expect that the Blue Dogs will bolt the Democratic Party without the Republicans to keep them in place. They will draw from what remains of the moderates in the GOP to bolster their power.

* There is also the dictum of Lord Acton. Without a balance to Democratic power, corruption is sure to erupt. There are too many current examples within the Democratic Caucus to ignore this probability.

* I wish that the American voter would become more of a sentient being and use the vote wisely. But there are still far too many who only vote single issue to expect this desire of mine to reach fruition. Political demagogues are certain to take advantage of this.

I'm sure there are other reasons to be cautious in the move to eliminate the filibuster. Steps must be taken to ensure that the cure isn't worse than the disease.

No need

Submitted by Freedem on Sun, 05/03/2009 - 11:01am.

There will be a filibuster proof Senate as soon a Al Franken takes his seat. No it will not be absolutely fillibuster proof but it will against a Republican only block vote.

With Obama pretty far to the right of the majority of the folk who voted for him, he will unfortunately not be nominating Johnathon Turley (my Favorite)or anyone of that ilk, so I expect that in spite of the guaranteed GOP swiftboating of anyone put up, they will probably get past the Blue Dogs.

Where we need to keep special watch is if Obama proposes the legal equivalent of Larry Summers and we may indeed want Russ Finegold or Bernie Saunders to be able to filibuster!

If the Gang Of Pirates think that the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat, it is not any part of Bipartisan to accommodate them and roll over and play dead.

Johnathon Turley

Submitted by Rob Joe the Ant... on Sun, 05/03/2009 - 8:48pm.

Rob Joe the Anti Republican: I agree with Freedom about Turley. He is one of the sharpest Constitutional Lawyers in the country and he will be fair in every decision he would make. Remember, if you get a chance to kick a repub in the arse do it.

I was just waiting for Mark

Submitted by Barry Schwartz on Sun, 05/03/2009 - 10:31am.

I was just waiting for Mark Karlin once again to suggest using our majority to tear down the nation’s institutions, Republican style. He is our wannabe Karl ‘Permanent Majority’ Rove. I guess that’s fine, as long as we don’t give him any actual, you know, Rovian power.

Another Bad Idea

Submitted by Dr Roberts on Sun, 05/03/2009 - 10:22am.

The elimination of the fillibuster is an idea whose time has not, nor will ever come. Some day Mr. Karlin, dark forces will once again be in the majority in this country. Without the arcane Senate rule known as the 'fillibuster", the majority would be enabled to run roughshod over the minority no matter how hysterical those in power may be. Of course it certainly helps if the leader of the opposition party has some juevos but the solution to that is to change the minority leader. No Sir, the fillibuster protects the rights of the minority and is therefore a very important component of our democratic form of government even though it is anti-democratic in nature. Think of the fillibuster as another one of those checks and balances the framers so ingeniously designed our form of government around. Time and energy is much better spent working towards a progressive fillibuster-proof majority than proposing to change the rules of the game in the middle of the contest.

The filibuster and our Constitution

Submitted by Pete Ross on Sun, 05/03/2009 - 4:54pm.

The framers of our Constitution did not install the filibuster when the Constitution was drafted. It was enabled unintentionally as a result of the Senate itself recodifying its rules in 1806. The Senate did not at that time create any alternative procedure to terminate debate, to require cloture or even require that a senator's reason to hold the floor must even be germane to the business before the Senate, the filibuster became an option for the minority to delay or block floor votes. The actual practice of using the filibuster process was not even used until 1841. The rule establishing cloture as the method of overcoming filibuster was not even installed until 1917 and subsequently modified through the 50s and 60s when the filibuster was used primarily to block civil rights legislation. The procedure has since been used more and more often in each Congress - with the 110th Congress reaching a record 112 filibuster cloture votes by the end of 2008. There is nothing sacred about the filibuster which frustrates democracy! It was not created by the authors of our Constitution nor are its primary usage, the denial of the majority vote, democratic in nature. The filibuster denies democracy by stimying a majority vote, allowing a minority to block legislation. Instances of wasting the Senate's time by using a Senator's right to "debate", to hold the Senate floor sometimes by even reciting things such as reading recipes or other non-related, non-germaine information into the Senate record in order to deny the majority a floor vote on a bill are nondemocratic! It is way past time for the filibuster to be retired. The issues before Congress today are just too important and the consequences resulting from allowing the stagnating of the Senates actions by allowing a continually shrinking minority to continue to use the filibuster (or threat of filibuster) to frustrate what the majority of voters have clearly shown they want, too severe to allow this blatantly non-democratic procedure to continue.

Another Dose of Reality

Submitted by Dr Roberts on Sun, 05/03/2009 - 6:47pm.

Thanks for posting a brief history of the "filibuster". You will not find any reference to the "filibuster" as being enshrined in the Constitution in my remarks. I refer to the "filibuster" as an arcane Senate rule. Are we on the same page yet Pete? "The filibuster denies democracy by stimying a majority vote, allowing a minority to block legislation. Well not quite. The filibuster prevents tyranny of the majority by protecting what very well may be the wisdom of the minority. For example, if Senate Dems would have had any balls, they could have precluded the invasion of Iraq by using the filibuster. "The issues before Congress today are just too important and the consequences resulting from allowing the stagnating of the Senates actions by allowing a continually shrinking minority to continue to use the filibuster (or threat of filibuster) to frustrate what the majority of voters have clearly shown they want, too severe to allow this blatantly non-democratic procedure to continue." Apparently you merely Googled the history of the "filibuster" since you betray a lack of historical context. You mean the decisions before the Senate are more important than during the Civil War? More important than during the Great Depression? More important than during two World Wars? Somehow our Republic not only survived the filibuster during these great crises, but endured and flourished. Yes Pete, the country will get a more than adequate replacement for Justice Souter without sacrificing the filibuster. Not to worry.

Another Bad Idea?

Submitted by Jonathan Inskeep on Sun, 05/03/2009 - 11:23am.

"No Sir, the fillibuster protects the rights of the minority and is therefore a very important component of our democratic form of government even though it is anti-democratic in nature." -- Dr. Roberts, above. Equally true, however, is my statement: Yes, Sir, the filibuster destroys the rights of the minority, and therefore is an intolerable component of our democratic form of government because it is anti-democratic in nature. The filibuster was used primarily to deny basic human rights to minorities--those in the south who had been slaves. These former slaves had also been denied the right to vote, to assemble, to learn to read, even to attend school. The anti-slavery forces beat the slavery forces during the Civil War, yet the loser states still denied constitutionally guaranteed rights to former slaves well into the late 1960s, a hundred years after the issue was settled "once and for all" with the blood of millions of Americans. How did they lose the bloody war yet win in their efforts to deny basic human rights? The use of the filibuster in the United States Senate. At that time, 67 Senators had to vote for cloture, and each and every attempt to enforce the US Constitution through implementing even simple laws like, "It shall be illegal to lynch black men," were killed by the use of the filibuster tactic. Mr. Karlin is correct. Dr. Roberts is wrong. Jonathan Inskeep Crofton, MD

Not So Fast Doc

Submitted by Dr Roberts on Sun, 05/03/2009 - 6:48pm.

"Equally true, however, is my statement: Yes, Sir, the filibuster destroys the rights of the minority, and therefore is an intolerable component of our democratic form of government because it is anti-democratic in nature." The first half of your statement is an oxymoron while the second half is sheer sophistry. You cherry-pick one example from American History to uncategorically declare your opinion to be sacrosanct. Sorry Doc, your argument is unconvincing. In the immortal words of Sir Winston Churchill, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

Cherry picking

Submitted by Jonathan Inskeep on Mon, 05/04/2009 - 6:39am.

I "cherry picked" the example because it was so horrendous that it outweighs all others. The use of a rule to suppress basic human rights won through the bloodiest war in American history with millions of American lives lost, only to have the filibuster rule declared more important that those lives lost, to have that rule used for evil purposes for a hundred years, in the life of a country less than two hundred years old at the time, makes it a perfect example to support my argument. Call it "sheer sophistry if you want, but I'd bet you benefited from the rule, or at least you were not one of the millions held in virtual slavery for your entire life as its result. I wonder where Dr. Roberts got his doctorate.

The Big Picture

Submitted by Dr Roberts on Mon, 05/04/2009 - 8:25am.

Do we not have equal rights in this country today, despite the filibuster? Did not LBJ hand the Old Confederacy to the Republicans by passing the Voting Rights Act of 1964 in spite of the filibuster? Progressive ideas eventually become law if those ideas are sound, even with the filibuster. Slavery is this country's original sin but Senate Rules are not inherently evil, although sometimes men are. One wonders which institution of higher learning you were able to graduate from with statements like "I'd bet you benefited from the rule". Like how, Mitch McConnell gives me a free car everytime the Republicans invoke it? No Doc, I am in favor of protecting the rights of the minority since, with my progressive ideas, I have been in the minority politically speaking my entire life.

It seems worth mentioning

Submitted by Barry Schwartz on Sun, 05/03/2009 - 10:41am.

It seems worth mentioning that, even when they had a majority in the Senate, the Republican senators represented a minority of the population. Perhaps this observation above all speaks in favor of the filibuster, as a protection against minority rule.

Get FREE BuzzFlash News Alerts

User login