Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: It's weekend opinion time again - WSJ on role of media

  1. #1
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default It's weekend opinion time again - WSJ on role of media

    (snip)"Liberals now marvel at the energy and output of the conservative "movement"--the talk shows, the think tanks, the blogosphere. No need to wonder; they compressed the rocket fuel for the inevitable explosion.

    But a price has been paid. What got lost during the years of liberal exclusionism, according to Peter Berkowitz of George Mason University, was "guidance for the negotiation of disagreement in a democracy." No more perfect example of the price the political system has paid for years of conservative shunning exists than the Senate's standoff over judges. You can find the reasons Democrats are shunning the Bush nominees to the appellate bench by consulting the Web site of People for the American Way--abortion, corporate law, minimum wage, Social Security, environment. They disagree with these nominees on--everything.

    For Democrats, judicial philosophy is a cultural Armageddon. Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy have turned the Senate into a Branch Davidian compound. No one in the liberal cult is allowed to leave, including the hostage nominees--unless they recant their conservatism. How many Senate Democrats plan to be in this bunker when Bill Frist's ATF squad detonates the "nuclear option"?

    Time was, "choice" for conservatives mainly meant accepting one's lot in life. Now they have options, lots of them. "

  2. #2
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: It's weekend opinion time again - WSJ on role of media

    When Republicans behave badly, they can't blame the Democrats, and vice versa. It's up to each person to engage in honorable conduct. The failure to do so, true, simply encourages the opponent to act dishonorably as well - but the fault lies within the person engaging in the conduct. It's that personal responsibility thing.

    For instance - Republicans today: "Bad, bad filibuster." Democrats: "Good, good filibuster." But when Abe Fortas was being proposed as Chief Justice by LBJ, those roles were reversed. Do they both have such short institutional memories? OK, that's an obvious answer.

  3. #3
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: It's weekend opinion time again - WSJ on role of media

    well, the Abe Fortas situation was just a little bit different that today's judicial nominees to the federal bench ...



    (snip)"In June 1968, at the end of the 1967 Term of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Earl Warren had Fortas arrange an appointment at the White House, at which time Warren announced his retirement, effective upon the confirmation of his successor. On June 26, LBJ nominated Fortas as Chief Justice. To Fortas’s seat, LBJ nominated a friend from Texas, Homer Thornberry. In July, Fortas erred, appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee despite the fact that no sitting Justice had ever done so. During those hearings, Fortas lied to the Committee, although he had not yet been caught in that lie. The Senate recessed without voting on the nomination. When Senator Robert Griffin learned in September that Fortas had accepted $15,000 to give some summer school lectures at American University’s law school, money that had been raised by Fortas’s former partners and clients, the nomination was in trouble. In early October, after a vote to end the filibuster on the nomination failed, Fortas asked that his nomination be withdrawn. By 1969, further revelations led Fortas to resign from the Court. A convicted financier named Louis Wolfson had agreed to pay Fortas $20,000 per year for the remainder of his life, an amount that continued until the death of his wife if Fortas died before she did. Fortas received the first check in January 1966, after joining the Court, and though he returned it in December, Fortas's actions were condemned as ethically improper. "(snip)


    to borrow some professional comparison ...

    "A few quick points. First, Fortas was not a Circuit Court nominee. He was not even a Supreme Court nominee. He was already an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court, having been confirmed just three years earlier by a Senate with an only slightly different composition than the one which had issues with him in 1968. President Johnson had nominated him to be the Chief Justice.

    As I pointed out yesterday, clearly what the Democrats are doing now with Circuit Court nominees has not been done before. There has never before been a filibuster to keep a nominee off of either a Circuit Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.

    Second, the Fortas filibuster lasted less than a week. The current filibusters have been going on much longer.

    Third, the Fortas situation was over one man, with specific objections about him, as compared to now where it is a systematic attempt to impose an ideological litmus test on nominees. “During his time on the Court, Fortas continued to advise LBJ on political matters, both foreign and domestic.” The salient debate was over ethics and separation of power. (snip)

    Good points all. Also, as I understand it (and I’m too lazy to look it up to confirm), Fortas failed to gain even a majority of the votes to end the filibuster. So a critical difference is that unlike today’s nominees, there was no majority support for Fortas. This is compounded by the fact that, back then, Senators routinely voted for cloture as a matter of principle – many Democrats, at least back then, wanted to eliminate the filibuster entirely (the current 60-vote rule was a compromise). Its entirely possible that an even-more-bloated majority would have opposed Fortas had an up-or-down vote ever occurred."(snip).
    Last edited by Melonie; 04-30-2005 at 07:38 AM.

  4. #4
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: It's weekend opinion time again - WSJ on role of media

    When the republicans behave badly, the democrats can't behave in an even worse fashion. If they want to come back, they HAVE GOT to get civilized again.

  5. #5
    God/dess montythegeek's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    2,103
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 9 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: It's weekend opinion time again - WSJ on role of media

    Melonie,
    According to this websit of The People for the American Way,(of all people)
    http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/def...=yes&units=all

    The vote to invoke cloture was "vote on October 1, 1968, with 45 senators voting for cloture and 43 against. He then considers those who did not participate in the cloture vote"
    Read it yourself. There is more of the classic, "if only so and so had voted the way he was supposed to". The Senate was also 64 Democrats and 36 Republicans in the 90th Congess.
    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html
    At least 19 of the "nonvotes for cloture" were Democrats (64-45=19). When 30% of your own party won't support the Presidents man you are in deep doodoo.

  6. #6
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: It's weekend opinion time again - WSJ on role of media

    again, this supposed 'precedent' of the use of filibuster to block judicial confirmation votes is a huge red herring in the Fortas case. Fortas was already a successfully confirmed Supreme Court Justice before LBJ nominated him as Chief Justice. There was no legal requirement that Fortas actually needed to go through a Senate Hearing in order to become Chief Justice, yet Fortas chose to do so anyhow. This supposed 'precedent' did NOT involve confirmation of a new judicial appointee.

    It is arguable that the entire incident was contrived as a 'face saving' tactic on behalf of LBJ for promoting his long time political buddy Fortas, because it allowed LBJ to make that promotion but also share potential 'political heat' with congressional republicans if and when the dirt really started to come forth on Abe Fortas. This is arguably the reason that so many congressional democrats 'abstained' from the cloture vote.

  7. #7
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: It's weekend opinion time again - WSJ on role of media

    It's not a red herring from the standpoint of whether the use of the filibuster is valid. That's all I was saying.

    Personally, I'm opposed to the filibuster, period, as being a nonsensical tool in a debate-and-decision forum.

    The Republicans sound laughable in trying to dismiss a tool that they've used before. The Democrats sound laughable in trying to preserve a tool whose sole purpose is to create a procedural logjam. And, Republicans, be careful what you wish for - you get rid of it now, and four years from now, you may well be desperately wishing you had it back.

  8. #8
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: It's weekend opinion time again - WSJ on role of media

    And, Republicans, be careful what you wish for - you get rid of it now, and four years from now, you may well be desperately wishing you had it back.
    Actually, historically speaking the republicans have been wimps when it came to using filibusters against legislation ... how long did last year's filibuster last ? 18 hours ?

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-06-2009, 02:16 PM
  2. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-13-2008, 04:40 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-26-2008, 02:15 PM
  4. International Opinion on US media ...
    By Melonie in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-05-2005, 06:30 PM
  5. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-15-2005, 09:30 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •