NationStates Jolt Archive

From http://www.lp.org/yourturn/archives/000019.shtml

Both Republicans and Democrats support the filibuster when it suits them

By Matthew Dailey

Senate Republicans' attempts to abolish filibusters against judicial nominees have generated a great deal of media coverage in recent weeks. They are calling for a forced up-or-down vote in the Senate, a practice that is increasingly being called the "nuclear option."

As usual in the current political climate, the Democrats and Republicans are portraying each other as unreasonable.

The Republican National Committee Web site claims Democrats "have become the party of obstructionism and double standards." Republicans say they are just looking for a "fair" up-and-down vote for the president's "qualified" judicial nominees.

In the Republicans' view, Democrats are only opposing Bush's nominees because of petty partisan politics. They say the Senate has a long history of giving judicial nominees an up-or-down vote, and they accuse the Democrats of not performing their "constitutional obligation."

But nowhere is it written in the Constitution that judicial nominees must receive an up-and-down vote in the Senate.

On the Democratic National Committee Web site, Democrats are portraying the Republicans as "pandering to extremists." The Democrats are opposing the nuclear option because they feel Bush's judicial nominees will "roll back equality, liberty, and individual rights of all Americans."

It appears the Democratic Party wants to protect individual liberty, now that it is politically expedient for them. They claim the Republicans are the ones violating the Constitution and Senate tradition.

According to the DNC Web site, the Senate has approved 95 percent of Bush's judicial nominees, opposing only those whose "records place them far outside the mainstream." The site notes further: "There may very well be times when changing the rules is appropriate, but it isn't when the majority doesn't get exactly what it wants."

A time the Democrats thought was "appropriate" was back in 1996 when they sought to abolish filibusters to give Clinton's judicial nominees an up-and-down vote, as David Boaz of the Cato Institute recently noted (http://www.cato.org/research/articles/boaz-050425.html). And in 1999, Senator Tom Daschle was quoted as saying, "An up-or-down vote, that is all we ask."

Sounds very familiar.

Both Democrats and Republicans have demonstrated that they will support checks and balances and constitutional procedure when they can score quick political points or benefit their respective special interests. But it is also evident both major parties will abandon their principles when they get in the way.

So next time one of you partisan Republicans or Democrats makes a thread about the filibuster matter, remember this.

So next time one of you partisan Republicans or Democrats makes a thread about the filibuster matter, remember this.
How dare you be a sensible person. Politics isn't for that sort of thinking.

So next time one of you partisan Republicans or Democrats makes a thread about the filibuster matter, remember this.
They don't call the LP 'The Party of Principle' for nothing!

They don't call the LP 'The Party of Principle' for nothing!
Irony?

A relevant point that we would all be better for acknowleding, but isn't that kind of a cop out? I mean its true, but surely if we went through the stress of it we could closely examine the merits of the arguments that each side is using and possibly find one side with a stronger argument than the other. To set them all on equal terms I think is an easier thing to do, and it avoids the responsibility of having to dive into the details and logic presented by the specific opposing arguments, no?

They don't call the LP 'The Party of Principle' for nothing!
Yeah, I cut out the last line of that editorial.

Power corrupts, and the Libertarians are not immune. I'm sure they would have just as much hypocrisy if they controlled the government.

They don't call the LP 'The Party of Principle' for nothing!
gotta love those libertarians. it up until you actually think about what those principles are that you say "hmmmmmmm..." then you say "wait, wtf!?"

Agghh I won't stop my hatred of the Democratic party! They are too stupid. What was the point of that compromise?! They got absolutely nothing. They let like 96 percent of of Bush's wack job nominees go up for a vote and fillibuster a measly 10 judges out of over 200 then the Republicans throw a temper tantrum, and threaten to undue two centuries of American governmental tradition just to get a 10 more ultra ultra rightwing nutjobs appoints to the court. And the Democrats simply cave in and get absolutely nothing in return.

Now the Republicans are going to be emboldened in the future to try this crap over and over again.

First you doing something ultra rightwing a divisive like nominate a bunch of judges which were already rejected for being too extreme.

Then when that doesnt't work you do something even more outrageous like
threaten to undue 200 years of Senate practice to get the loony 4 percent of your judges who were rejected appointed to life time positions.

Then the democrats cave and go with the first less horrible option and the Republicans get what they want.

But the Dems need to preserve the fillibuster to use on the ineveitablely Ultra rightwing Bush Supreme court nomination! So the republicans will just threaten to use the nuclear option again to get what the want! Arggh Democrats are so damn spineless.

A relevant point that we would all be better for acknowleding, but isn't that kind of a cop out? I mean its true, but surely if we went through the stress of it we could closely examine the merits of the arguments that each side is using and possibly find one side with a stronger argument than the other. To set them all on equal terms I think is an easier thing to do, and it avoids the responsibility of having to dive into the details and logic presented by the specific opposing arguments, no?

I have found the best option is to take the side of present day Democrats, and Yesteryear Republicans; and come to the conclusion for the filibuster to stay, merely because both sides want to keep changing the rules as it suits them...

May sound odd, but the contention that exists between the DNC and GOP, and their petty partisian politics, is about the only thing to date that has prevented this nation from turning into an outright police state (not that it hasn't been slowly growing close to such)...

First rule of american polly sci

politics have short memories
Its the same way with gerrymandering, Democrats will redristrict unfairly if they had a majorit just as republicans will

faster than you think.

pay attention, Personal responsiblit