http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=703&e=1&u=/ap/20050426/ap_on_go_co/filibuster_fight&sid=84439559
Is anyone else worried about the Republican majority leader's plan to change the Senater rules to prevent the minority from filibustering?
Can't we get some moderate politicians in office? A nice fiscal conservative who might lean a little liberal? It seems more and more today the minorities in either party are running the show. I know we moderates outnumber them. So why is it they dominate the political mart? I am forever frustrated with the lack of good moderate-centerist-reasonable candidates.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
What's also not moderate is the terms in which all this is painted -- nuclear option, two hundred year tradition. Neither was true (I say "was" since the debate temporarily seems to be over). In fact, even the best thinkers on the Demo side have not been able to prove that there's ever been a history of filibustering court nominees. It is the prerogative of the president to send them to Senate, and the Senate has always had straight up and down votes, although sometimes preceded by debate. It is true that the Senate has, on rare occasions, refused to confirm a proposed nominee, but there is no evidence that this was ever preceded by a filibuster.
So, there is no two hundred year tradition. And since there is no two hundred year tradition, there is nothing "nuclear" about saying, heck, you can't come in and refuse to let us vote on a judiciary candidate. Indeed, that refusal flies in the face of a 200 year tradition!
Lastly, because the popular image of filibusters was set by Mr. Smith Goes to Washington it's worth remembering two things: (1) That movie had Mr. Smith filibustering, not against judicial nominees, but against pork barrel politics; and (2) one of the rule changes in the last 70 years is that filibusters are no longer the grueling personal marathon they once were. That is, the concept of a filibuster once entailed sacrifice, and that idea has gone by the wayside.
What actually bothers me about this probably has to do more with my own point of view than the media spin on this situation, although I do agree the media is not doing anyone a service framing this in such an all or nothing manner.
The real problem I have with this situation is the Bush administration's decision to give up consulting with the elected representatives in the jurisdictions with vacancies when making appointments - back in 2001. That was a long standing tradition, and I really don't understand the decision to abandon the practice.
I see the filibustering as a back-door for local politicians to be able to give a thumbs up or down to local nominees. I don't like the idea of the top down appointments at all.
Honestly, I am not onboard with the Republican social agenda and I worry about appointments here in the 9th circuit. I am annoyed that representatives and senators that I voted for no longer have any say in the appointments.
Post a Comment