If it's good enough for the Republicans, it's good enough for the Democrats. No?
Slice:
To justify banning Senate filibusters in judicial nomination debates, Republicans are claiming support from history. Until now, say Republicans such as Sen. John Kyl and former Sen. Bob Dole, no one has used filibusters to block nominees to the federal courts. Because Democrats have broken an unwritten rule, their logic goes, Republicans are forced to change written ones.
But the charge that filibustering judicial appointments is unprecedented is false. Indeed, it's surprising that so few Washington hands seem to recall one of the most consequential filibusters in modern times, particularly because it constituted the first salvo in a war over judicial nominees that has lasted ever since.
Consider: From 1897 to 1968, the Senate rejected only one candidate for the Supreme Court (John J. Parker, in 1930). But since 1968, six candidates have been rejected or withdrawn, and four others have faced major hostility. During Bill Clinton's presidency, the willingness to challenge presidential prerogative spilled down to the level of appellate court nominees as well.
End slice:
Why are the Republicans acting like they are going to be the "majority" in perpetuity?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
You're right in that this is the only precident of a filibuster of a judicial nomination. From reports I've heard, Fortas didn't really want the position. The Filibuster was a way of allowing his name to be withdrawn without him having to turn it down. I could be wrong on that, though.
The fact of the matter is the filibuster of at least 10 judges is a far cry from a single incident almost 40 years ago. Republicans did oppose Clinton appointees but it was when they were in the majority and had the right to vote them down. It didn't have anything to do with a filibuster. Fortas is the only possible example that can be used.
The filibuster is a rule set in the past by the senate. As such, it should not be violated or rescinded in the heat of the moment. It is a matter of party and personal integrity plus fair play to stay within the established rules. All other comments about who did what when and where are all irrelevant!
I, and undoubtedly the majority of Americans who understand the true impact of this, object to Senator Frist and his fellow Republican's attempts to remove the Senate filibuster rule whether we, the US voters agree with them or not. This Republican mob like tactic reminds me of my childhood days when the local bullies changed our game rules, back and forth, to suit themselves. The Republicans appear to be just as pushy, childish, and dishonest as the sandlot bullies.
It is the responsibility of the Senate and the House to avoid special treatment for the few. They need to realize that they will aid those who want to form a secular state in the US that would be similar to those in the middle east. This unholy marriage of the Republicans, and the "Xtian Rite" (neither right or truly religious) fanatic fundamentalists, will overcome us and bite us all in the butt. This "behind" attack has always been very evident in the middle east. Evidently, Congressional Republicans have forgotten past history lessons and the "hard times" that religion produced during the European dark ages!
I, as a past Republican voter, insist that Sen. Frist and his Republican colleagues keep in mind that this country was made for all people and beliefs, and not just
for one religion that so openly, and often illegally, supports the Republican party. Do not dismantle this rule to appease the few who, in my view, seek to destroy us.
The republicans need to sever their objectionable religious attachments. Or are The Republicans and the Fundamentalists just two similar peas in a pod?
Post a Comment