Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: 1968 GOP Used judicial filibuster

  1. #1
    Veteran Member devilsadvocate667's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    241
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default 1968 GOP Used judicial filibuster

    http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/...ppointment.htm



    So if the GOP in fact used a judicial filibuster and in fact used filibusters many times when they were the minority, and in fact blocked 6x more CLinton appointees than the number of Bush appointees blocked, just what the hell are conservatives whining about?

    I can't wait for the conservative sycophants to spin this one. And I'm sure you will. You always do.


  2. #2
    Banned Madcap's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Saint effing Louis
    Posts
    6,804
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: 1968 GOP Used judicial filibuster

    Quote Originally Posted by devilsadvocate667
    So if the GOP in fact used a judicial filibuster and in fact used filibusters many times when they were the minority, and in fact blocked 6x more CLinton appointees than the number of Bush appointees blocked, just what the hell are conservatives whining about?
    Just see if they get it. I almost want them to just to see the right wing cry foul when the pendulum swings and they wind up the toothless dogs on the block. I can just hear Sean Hannity tossing blame, right now.

  3. #3
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: 1968 GOP Used judicial filibuster

    Abe Fortas was a crook.

    I don't believe any Republicans have ever said there were never any Republican fillibusters. Generally speaking, I feel that the president deserves to put his people in office, and felt that way when Clinton was president. However, the democrats are using the fillibuster for purely ideological grounds. Remember when the Democrats claimed Bush was trying to, "overturn" the election by challenging the Florida count? Well one of the powers of the presidency is the power to appoint people to the federal bench. It is now the Democrats that seek to "overturn" the election by denying the president his right. One reason some Republicans are opposed to eliminating the fillibuster is that they know they will be in the minority some day. If Democrats only threatened to fillibuster nominees with the same type of serious moral and ethical failings that Abe Fortas had, I doubt we'd be having the current controversy.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  4. #4
    God/dess Casual Observer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boston MA
    Posts
    5,670
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 144 Times in 74 Posts

    Default Re: 1968 GOP Used judicial filibuster

    So if the GOP in fact used a judicial filibuster and in fact used filibusters many times when they were the minority, and in fact blocked 6x more CLinton appointees than the number of Bush appointees blocked, just what the hell are conservatives whining about?
    Clinton's appointees were not filibustered.
    Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

    William F. Buckley, Jr.

  5. #5
    Banned Madcap's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Saint effing Louis
    Posts
    6,804
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: 1968 GOP Used judicial filibuster

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Observer
    Clinton's appointees were not filibustered.
    Yeah, i'm pretty sure most, if not all, got through (though my memory may be off).

    My point is, the GOP should be careful what it wishes for. They may have to face the fruit of their labor one day.

  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: 1968 GOP Used judicial filibuster

    The Fortas filibuster was a very very different situation because A. it did not involve a confirmation question of Fortas becoming a SC judge or not (he was already a sitting SC judge), B. there was nothing partisan about the filibuster supporters (politicians on both sides of the aisle wanted Fortas to be held accountable for his sleazy financial ethics), and C. it had absolutely nothing to do with judge Fortas' personal stands on judicial/legal theories and principles.

    I have seen statistics somewhere which indicate that, except for GWB's administration, the failure rate of recent presidents' judicial / cabinet appointments was something on the order of 5-10%, whereas the failure rate of GWB's judicial / cabinet appointments is over 40%. This would appear to go far beyond a matter of qualified vs. unqualified candidates, and clearly demonstrates partisan objections on a basis of judicial philosophy. However, 'elections have consequences' meaning that under the constitution whoever wins the presidential election has the 'right' to appoint judicial candidates of his choosing. GWB is the first president to which that 'right' is being denied in any significant way.

    As to future worries for republicans if the judicial nominee filibustering is ended permanently, this doesn't matter a bit. Historically, the republicans have never stood in the way of a democrat president's judicial nominations on the basis of judicial philosophy (as much as some may have wished to). Ultimately, constitutional law says that only a simple majority vote is required for 'advise and consent'. The republicans have never disputed that constitutional fact (as much as some may have wished to), only democrats. Plus there is no such thing as 'permanent' where senate rules are concerned. Prior to the 1970's it was possible to end any filibuster simply by requiring the speaker to hold the podium continuously - thus after 48 hours or so human need for sleep/bathroom break brought a filibuster to an end. Thus the ever famous liberal analogy from 'Mr. Smith goes to Washington' actually would have operated under a very different set of senate filibuster rules !
    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 05-20-2005 at 12:04 AM.

  7. #7
    Banned Madcap's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Saint effing Louis
    Posts
    6,804
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: 1968 GOP Used judicial filibuster

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    Historically, the republicans have never stood in the way of a democrat president's judicial nominations on the basis of judicial philosophy (as much as some may have wished to).
    I think this time, it has a lot to do with the supreme court and Abortion. If enough seats stand against a future abortion case, we could end up in the bad old days with the back alley coathangar man. That's the spectre i think these folk see when they are wanting to block these judges.

  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: 1968 GOP Used judicial filibuster

    I think this time, it has a lot to do with the supreme court and Abortion. If enough seats stand against a future abortion case, we could end up in the bad old days with the back alley coathangar man. That's the spectre i think these folk see when they are wanting to block these judges.
    It's possible that 'affirmative discrimination', interpretations of 'individual right to privacy' etc., 'equal protection' rights for illegal aliens etc. are equally qualified candidates for a partisan 'litmus test' re judicial appointments. The bottom line issue for me, however, is that these judicial philosophy questions have now become an active part of the 'advise and consent' process - which is contrary to the constitutional framework which IMHO only referred to the professional qualifications and personal integrity of the nominees.

  9. #9
    Banned Madcap's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Saint effing Louis
    Posts
    6,804
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: 1968 GOP Used judicial filibuster

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    It's possible that 'affirmative discrimination', interpretations of 'individual right to privacy' etc., 'equal protection' rights for illegal aliens etc. are equally qualified candidates for a partisan 'litmus test' re judicial appointments. The bottom line issue for me, however, is that these judicial philosophy questions have now become an active part of the 'advise and consent' process - which is contrary to the constitutional framework which IMHO only referred to the professional qualifications and personal integrity of the nominees.
    True, but think realistically Mel. What have both the Dems and Repubs been getting elected on MOST for the past thirty + years. The hot button topic of abortion.

    See, the thing is, i don't see the republicans letting abortion get outlawed any time soon. It's too easy a platform for them to get elected on. BUT, being a battering ram against pro-lifers gets Dems elected. Of all the shit these Judges get named for being against, abortion is always at the top of the list. Fighting against their nominations gets these dems votes.

    BUT, should the Sup court stand in favor of making abortion illegal (which is a possibility if the whole thing changes, as i recall Sandy Oconnor stood for abortion rights, am i wrong? She's getting up there) This whole thing could backfire on both parties. Making the rep's have one less platform (and a big one at that) and giving folk a powerhouse reason to NOT vote green or Libertarian, or whatever weird party Liberals vote for... Practically giving the Dems the whole shebang, while everyone else is stuck with back alley abortions.

    This is worst case, i know, and alarmist, i know. But it is a possibility.

  10. #10
    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: 1968 GOP Used judicial filibuster

    I don't want to derail this thread onto the topic of abortion, but you're probably right about abortion being the #1 judicial 'litmus test'. However, looking too deeply into judicial philosophy vs. abortion also typically leads to a bunch of non-sequiturs such as judges who are pro-abortion also typically being anti-capital punishment (thus providing the political color commentators ammunition for remarks like 'they think it's OK to kill unborn babies but not OK to kill murderers) ... and ultimately to the issues of judicial activism and "constitutional creativity" based on a political agenda rather than purely legal principles.

    Getting back to the filibuster issue re judicial/cabinet nominees, if the executive and judicial branches of gov't are actually going to function, this country simply cannot continue to leave 20-30-40% of vacancies unfilled - or even worse filling those vacancies with appointees who are so 'ordinary' or 'average' that they haven't attracted any previous career attention or notoriety which could be held against them during the confirmation process. Doing so only guarantees that instead of getting 'bad government' say 50% of the time (depending on your personal political viewpoint vs whether the democrats or republicans happen to be the majority party at the moment), that we'll get 'bad government' 100% of the time - based on the premise that any nominee who is intelligent/ballsy/diligent enough to have made a 'mark' in their field is doomed to rejection by filibuster.

    Another aspect which gets short shrift from the mainstream media is that the nuclear/constitutional option which is very likely to rear it's ugly head in the next couple of days does NOT apply to proposed legislation, only to nominees. IMHO once we start departing from strict constitutional content regarding nominees (which for lack of a specifically enumerated requirement to the contrary means a simple 51 vote majority), it's all politicking. The second that the aspect of 'minority input' enters the equation, one second later the next question becomes how much 'minority input' is appropriate. 60/40 under current senate rules re filibusters against nominees ? 67/33 ? 99/1 ? I suspect that Democratic party opinion on this matter will directly coincide to how many senate seats they actually hold, both now and in the future.
    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 05-20-2005 at 05:25 AM.

  11. #11
    Veteran Member devilsadvocate667's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    241
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: 1968 GOP Used judicial filibuster

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    Abe Fortas was a crook.

    I don't believe any Republicans have ever said there were never any Republican fillibusters.
    Actually, yes they have. Many many republicans are saying this is the 1st time a judicial filibuster has ever been used and it's being unconstitutional.

    Quite hypocritical, yet quite typical for republicans.


    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    Generally speaking, I feel that the president deserves to put his people in office, and felt that way when Clinton was president.

    LOL! WHy? THis is what opposittion is for. A president getting everything he wants is called a dictatorship. I don't think any president deserves everything he wants. People have faults. Checks and balances are needed to avoid those faults. Especially this president and this dishonest administration needs to be kept in check.



    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    However, the democrats are using the fillibuster for purely ideological grounds.
    Big freaking deal. Stop acting like a victim. 60 of CLinton's appointees were kept from a vote based on idealogical grounds. You people act as if you've been innocent for the entire lifespan of the GOP.
    Last edited by devilsadvocate667; 05-20-2005 at 07:38 AM.


  12. #12
    Veteran Member devilsadvocate667's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    241
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: 1968 GOP Used judicial filibuster

    Quote Originally Posted by Madcap
    Yeah, i'm pretty sure most, if not all, got through (though my memory may be off).
    No, 60 nominees didn't get through the OBSTRUCTIONIST GOP senate.


  13. #13
    Veteran Member devilsadvocate667's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    241
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: 1968 GOP Used judicial filibuster

    Oh God, here we go with Melonie's 2ΒΆ. This is always fun.

    1st of all, stop playing the victim like this is a partisan effort. This is based on keeping a FEW radical extremist judges from having lifetime appointment. 2ndly CLinton had 60 appointment s killed by the GOP obstructionists, Bush has had only nine. SO if you want to complain about how victimized you are that your extremist judges aren't getting confirmed, maybe you should look at the history of your own party.

    "whoever wins the presidential election has the 'right' to appoint judicial candidates of his choosing. GWB is the first president to which that 'right' is being denied in any significant way."


    That is mello-drama Melonie and factually dishonest. Presidents have the right to nominate whoever they want, but the job of the senate is to keep them in check when they dont reflect the mainstream. Presidents in no way have the right to get anything they want. I can't believe people these days would be so partisan that you would wish the best interests of your party over the best interests of the nation.

    "Historically, the republicans have never stood in the way of a democrat president's judicial nominations on the basis of judicial philosophy (as much as some may have wished to)"

    I find it amusing that you believe that. That is factually dishonest. You honestly believe the republicans are without fault, dont you? You really need to look at teh reasoning behind the obstructionism behind the GOP killing 60 CLinton appointees. Actually, in EVERY last rejection of a nominee by both parties, it's judicial philosphy that ultimately was the inspiration for the rejection.

    " Ultimately, constitutional law says that only a simple majority vote is required for 'advise and consent'."

    Nope! The constitution has left it up to the senate itself to create it rules and ethics. Try again please!


  14. #14
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: 1968 GOP Used judicial filibuster

    Quote Originally Posted by devilsadvocate667
    Actually, yes they have. Many many republicans are saying this is the 1st time a judicial filibuster has ever been used and it's being unconstitutional.

    Quite hypocritical, yet quite typical for republicans.
    To overlook the fact that Abe Fortas was one of sleaziest people to sit on the Supreme Court is to twist the facts to suit your ideology. The Fortas nomination was exactly the resaon the Founder's put the adise and consent clause in the constitution, to keep ethically challenged presidents like LBJ from stacking the federal bench with his political cronies. You're very selective with your quoting of me. You left this one out:
    If Democrats only threatened to fillibuster nominees with the same type of serious moral and ethical failings that Abe Fortas had, I doubt we'd be having the current controversy.

    LOL! WHy? THis is what opposittion is for. A president getting everything he wants is called a dictatorship. I don't think any president deserves everything he wants. People have faults. Checks and balances are needed to avoid those faults. Especially this president and this dishonest administration needs to be kept in check.
    Again, read my quote. I said "general speaking". What the Senate Democrats are doing is not opposition, its obstructionism. There is a difference. The, "loyal opposition" works within the system, obstrucionists abuse the system. If Bush's nominees are so terrible, bring them to the floor of the senate and expose them. You don't like Bush's politics? Fine, work harder in '08.

    Big freaking deal. Stop acting like a victim. 60 of CLinton's appointees were kept from a vote based on idealogical grounds. You people act as if you've been innocent for the entire lifespan of the GOP.
    Again, you might want to actually read my posts before spouting off your leftist dogma. I said:
    Generally speaking, I feel that the president deserves to put his people in office, and felt that way when Clinton was president.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  15. #15
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: 1968 GOP Used judicial filibuster

    Quote Originally Posted by devilsadvocate667
    Nope! The constitution has left it up to the senate itself to create it rules and ethics. Try again please!
    And that's exactly what the Senate Republicans are doing. What's the problem?
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  16. #16
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: 1968 GOP Used judicial filibuster

    Why don't we get the story from someone that was actually in the Senate at the time?

    A unique case of obstruction
    By Bob Dole
    In 1968, President Lyndon Johnson sought to elevate his longtime personal lawyer, then-Associate Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas, to be chief justice. I would not be elected a senator for a few more months, but followed the news surrounding this nomination closely.
    ...The claim Fortas was not confirmed due to a "filibuster" is off-base. A filibuster, commonly understood, occurs when a minority of senators prevents a majority from voting up-or-down on a matter by use or threat of permanent debate.

    That simply did not happen with Fortas, where the Senate debated the nomination's merits quite vigorously. Senators exposed the ethical issues involved and the widespread belief the vacancy had been manufactured for political purposes. They sought to use debate to persuade other senators the nomination should be defeated.

    After less than a week, the Senate leadership tried to shut down debate. At that time, two-thirds of the senators voting were needed to do so, yet only 45 senators supported the motion. Of the 43 senators who still wished to debate the nomination, 24 were Republicans and 19 were Democrats.

    President Johnson saw the writing on the wall -- that Fortas did not have 51 senators in support of his nomination -- so he withdrew the nomination before debate could be completed.

    The events of 37 years ago contrast markedly with those the Senate faces today:

    (1) Fortas lacked majority support when President Johnson withdrew his nomination. Today, Senate Democrats block up-or-down votes on judicial nominees who are supported by a majority of senators.

    (2) Justice Fortas was politically associated with President Johnson and eventually resigned from the Supreme Court under an ethical cloud. No such charges have been made against President Bush's nominees.

    (3) The Senate debated the Fortas nomination only for several days before Johnson withdrew the nomination, versus the four years some of President Bush's nominees have been pending. It's clear the Democrats today have no desire to persuade, and have even complained further debate is a "waste of time."

    (4) Fortas' support and opposition were bipartisan, with Republicans and Democrats on both sides of the question. Today, the controversy is purely partisan -- with only Democratic senators, led by their leader Harry Reid, opposing an up-or-down vote.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  17. #17
    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: 1968 GOP Used judicial filibuster

    Nope! The constitution has left it up to the senate itself to create it rules and ethics. Try again please!
    Not precisely true. The senate's advise and consent role could be constitutionally fulfilled by sending the president 51 letters from senators approving his nominee. There is nothing whatsoever mentioned in the constitution in regard to a specific senate procedure i.e. hearings and votes.

    1st of all, stop playing the victim like this is a partisan effort. This is based on keeping a FEW radical extremist judges from having lifetime appointment
    40%+ is not a FEW. And the issue is not about 'extremist' judges either, because one party's 'extremist' is the other party's 'savior of America'.

    Presidents in no way have the right to get anything they want. I can't believe people these days would be so partisan that you would wish the best interests of your party over the best interests of the nation.
    and the nomination for the Hypocracy award of the year goes to ....

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-29-2005, 07:19 AM
  2. Top 10 Republican filibuster lies!
    By devilsadvocate667 in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 05-24-2005, 09:50 AM
  3. Filibuster no more
    By azamber's bitch in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-16-2005, 11:59 PM
  4. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-28-2004, 02:28 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
  •