The political capital idea makes some sense, and unless the Democrats are willing to spend some on the filibuster and the "nuclear option" showdown they are not going to earn much political capital. The people in the middle are starting to hear what is being said about the Republicans, which is why the Republicans numbers are going down. Now they need to see an alternative, someone willing to stand up against the arrogant Republicans. This is one of those moments that gets repeated over and over again in the next campaign, and it would behoove Reid and the rest of the Democrats in the Senate to consider this the moment the momentum shifted.
Here's the text of a letter I sent in to the NY Times yesterday:
To The Editor:
There is indeed a clear principle at stake in the senate fight over judicial nominees. Judges, especially high-ranking judges, must
represent the majority sentiment of Americans. Electoral results notwithstanding, this majority sentiment is towards moderation and
indepedence. Both parties have long used filibusters, or the threat of filibusters, to push presidents to nominate more moderate judges than
they would have liked. That is how the system is supposed to work. Rather than attempting an unprecedented power grab, Republican senators
should be pressuring the White House to send them only judges that can win bipartisan support. If a presidential appointee can't get even five
opposition senators to back them, they shouldn't be allowed to take office.
If Dr. Frist is really so concerned about protecting the rights of the majority of citizens, I suggest that he modify the senate rules to
require nominees to receive votes from senators representing at least 50% of the population.
Sincerely,
Dr. Daniel Maskit
Y'all seem to forget, Clarence Thomas was voted in 52 to 48. Not important enough for a filibuster back then I supposed. It was only Clarence Thomas, appointed to the highest level of the Judicary, maybe even the next Chief Justice. He recieved his vote up or down. Let's get these others their's.
Posted by peter at May 20, 2005 02:34 PMpeter, you may not realize that you're arguing for the filibuster: Clarence Thomas clearly should have been stopped; he has no business on the bench anywhere, much less the Supreme Court. We won't make the same mistake again.
Posted by Matt Davis at May 20, 2005 02:47 PMOf course, Clarence Thomas was not filibustered out of the spirit of "bipartisanship", which Democrats used to practice before we realized the GOP had no intention of returning it.
Posted by Blue Jean at May 20, 2005 03:08 PMThe same Senators Byrd, Kerry, Biden, Kennedy, Dodd, Inouye, Akaka, Lautenberg, Levin, Leahy, Mikulski, Rockefeller, and lets include Daschle. These Senators failed America then? Dems had the majority then, they failed America. And you expect us to trust their speech now? They were wrong then and now they're right? What if they were right then and wrong now?
Posted by peter at May 20, 2005 03:09 PMSo peter, should we count on the Senators from the Green Party to save us? Oh, wait . . .
We can all agree that the Democrats leave a lot to be desired -- but they are the best we have, and they are finally waking up. Flagellating them for sins in the past is not helpful.
Posted by ck at May 20, 2005 03:37 PMOne issue I haven't seen addressed regarding the filibuster, maybe considered too loopy for some: what if the Republican senators are pretty certain there will never be another Democratic congress, via vote rigging? Their arrogance knows no bounds, obviously, but I can't imagine them being so short sighted. Any thoughts?
Posted by lothar at May 20, 2005 03:39 PMThese Senators failed America then?
Yes, peter, they did. They still hadn't realized just how far back in time the Federalist Society wants to take the country. Now they know.
Like I said, we would be fools to make the same mistake again.
Posted by Matt Davis at May 20, 2005 04:00 PMYes, peter, they did. They still hadn't realized just how far back in time the Federalist Society wants to take the country. Now they know.
Matt, I think this is still open for debate. I used to think they were aiming for the 1880s or 1890s. Now some of their rhetoric argues for the 1790s. However some of what they have to say seems to suggest a longing for the 1650s (think Charles I).
Posted by Daniel Maskit at May 20, 2005 04:08 PMTrue, Mr. Maskit. They do keep pushing the envelope, don't they?
Regardless, once the senators peter listed realized that the Federalists are in deadly earnest about going at least as far back as 1910, if not farther, I think they began to develop new seriousness about the filibuster.
Posted by Matt Davis at May 20, 2005 04:24 PMOh, sorry--Dr. Maskit, I learned from your letter.
Posted by Matt Davis at May 20, 2005 04:25 PMOh, sorry--Dr. Maskit, I learned from your letter.
LOL. No honorific required.
Posted by Daniel Maskit at May 20, 2005 04:47 PMI think 1650 is about right, before those upstarts with their ideas of "enlightenment" and all gained ground. Watch who starts buying up land during the next recession...
Posted by idook at May 20, 2005 05:05 PMBack to the past.... Yesterday one of the conservative commentators on NPR was expounding on the latest Lukas film and talking about how the Jedis were the wrong side - it was the Empire that was good because it taught the right conservative, stable (think rigid) values. Much better for society. Yup, valuing strict social casts where everyone knows their place is certainly one thing the reactionaries want to have once again. Back to the time when people were put into stocks for having the gall to wear clothes that were above their station - or like Joan of Arc who was burned at the stake because she wore the clothes of a man.
Posted by Mary at May 20, 2005 05:10 PMWe will have long memories on this. I have a simple message for the GOP: after this and especially in 2009, your lectures on bipartisanship and the need for moderate or center-right judges will fall on deaf ears and will no longer have any traction. ...
I disagree. We, as in grassroots Democrats, will remember this. Washington Democrats may still not get it, they may still be taken in by this often repeated shell game, at it will have as much traction as they let it have if we don't sit on them.
Posted by natasha at May 20, 2005 05:59 PM
Well with all de debates about our greatest A** politicians, fighting about judicial nominees, because king george want to put more people on this planet! On C-Span Washington journal, when you listen to the neocons, all those babies aborted would have take care of the social security problems! Not even understand that most unwanted children end the other way. Charles Manson was one example. Most of unwanted children ends up dead or in the states control
Bush should be impeached for his inaction on 9/11/2001. He was also inactive during the last week phony fear alert. Our king was bycicling, and no one warned him about the situation is proof enough that he is not in control. Cheney/Rumsfeld, Rice ( who always has her background as poor, does not tell this country that she had a ship named after her.
Those neocons Senator should be defeated. They do not represent us.
They are self interest.
But the worst is yet to come. Here it comes. Look at the pictures from the guardian and cry
Rain forest in the Amazon has been destroyed for decade. Now we have to come to the reality that we are destroying ourselves. It has been said that the Amazon was the oxygen produce for this planet but I was told in Microbiology that ocean was the biggest producer! We are killing that one too. What is humankind future? Why does we do not teach the world that overpopulation is the greatest problem. As king george does not want to shake his bases and rewards his rich friends, did give the right to cut our trees to. He is oblivious of anything but taking care of his cronies. What can you expect from a stupid man.!
What is left of the Amazon
Note: Until non-proprietary, open-source voting and tabulation software is the law of the land, the Republican Party with their ES&S and Diebolt connections have nothing to fear from political opposition.
The fix is in and as soon as those in power outlaw exit polling, there will be so many fewer questions.
Posted by brisa at May 20, 2005 06:28 PMSo scary.
Posted by firedoglake at May 20, 2005 07:20 PMWell, if they implement the nuke-yuler option, then it's obvious they think they need never fear losing....i.e. brisa is right on target. If that happens, I say screaming in the streets is in order, and that the minority party makes such a noise, that the deaf-ass media can't ignore it....and when the dems are in power again, change the rules so NO ONE gets lifetime appointments! They're opening a Pandora's Box if they really do this thing.
Posted by Sharon at May 20, 2005 07:22 PMA Party that takes steps to change the Senate in such a way as to render them impotent if they were ever to return to the minority is simply declaring its intention to never, ever, return to the the minority in the Senate again.
Welcome to the one-Party state.
Posted by Davis X. Machina at May 20, 2005 07:30 PMLothar, I have thought the very same thought and have posted that fear. I don't think there will ever be another election free of fraud. These people are running this Country like they will retain power from this day forward. I was watching a story on Marcos tonight on PBS, and he thought the same thing. The masses will be satisfied for a while, but when they turn, watch out. The similaries of our Country to the Marcos regime is becoming frightening very similiar.
Posted by Judith at May 20, 2005 08:15 PMThere was a suggestion on another thread that merits consideration. Encourage all to vote absentee -- and copy -- if that were pushed then it could have an inpact.
As for the other train of this thread. . . my thought of the centrist nature of this country is shaken. There was a time that the moderates made sure that neither party held more sway. That confidence is gone in me. I fear that with the bull-headedness of those in office, and the willingness to change the rules of the Senate, that all of us are treading on new ground. I fear the right doesn't know the repucusions of their actions and the left doesn't know if it really matters because the voting is all sewn up.
Sorry, I have stepped out of myself. I will now return to myself . . .
boy king says: I WANT MY JUDGES
tammy says: but wait, k.
tammy doesn't like change, unless she has to. poor tammy will have to change.
And the only thing basically left is for Bush to declare Marshall Law and detain all political subversives in prisons. Tin foil hat on tonight.
Posted by Judith at May 20, 2005 08:30 PM"and the willingness to change the rules of the Senate, that all of us are treading on new ground." Posted by Tammy
Yes, we are certainly "treading on new ground." If these un-Americans get by with this, then it opens the possibility of changing just about any law or rule they want changed. Then it will get real scary.
Posted by Judith at May 20, 2005 08:38 PMJudith quotes tammy: k :)
Posted by Tammy at May 20, 2005 08:57 PMI think Reid has to take this one to the hoop if for no other reason than to force the "moderate" wing of the Republican party to reassert itself.
Here is a simple example of what I am talking about: The asbestos bill currently under consideration in the Senate Judicary Committee would resolve hundreds of thousands of claims by people who claim they are sick from exposure to asbestos. 60 comapnies who made or manufactured asbestos-containing products (with varying degrees of culpability) have already gone bankrupt and more are on the brink. The trial lawyers have Ford, GM and Chrysler (to name but a few) under siege. The litigation has been ongoing for over 25 years and many of the same issues are litigated over and over with more than 50% of the transction costs going just to lawyers (on both sides). There are a lot of companies that would like to trade the certainty of the trust fund that has been proposed under the bill for the casino-esque tort system.
However, the asbestos bill will likely be one of the first casualties in a nuclear Senate winter. Leahy is a co-sponsor and Feinstein has said she is likely to support it, but Leahy is on record as saying he will be powerless to stop his Democratic colleagues from scuttling the bill in retaliation for Frist's fillibuster bullshit.
Despite, this however, the business interests remain mute and seem content to allow the far right to drive the agenda. Perhaps they don't believe the Democrats are serious. Perhaps they think they never had it so good since they joined up with Dobson & Co. But at some point, it may occur to them that the far right agenda of getting Priscilla Owen a seat on the 5th Circuit and passing laws to stick a tube back into Terry Schavio is not what they need out of this Congress or this Administartion. Maybe then the CEOs of the big corporations who have been the traditional pillar of the GOP will finally wake up and grab Rove by the throat and say, "cut this bullshit out and get on with it."
I think to make that happen, Reid has got to dig in on this one. It can work assuming they do it right. People get pissed off when they can't get a passport or get into the Smithsonian. They could care less whether we have a UN ambassador or not.
The Dems can tie things up in knots without pissing people off. If they are smart, they will trade around the responsibility for creating havoc so no single Senator takes the heat. Biden shuts down the Foreign Relations Committee on Monday, Boxer puts a hold on Bolton on Tuesday, Reid says no unanimous consent on Wednesday . . . but the government stays open, the troops get their supplies, etc.
It'll be like whack-a-mole.
Posted by Daddy Warbuks at May 20, 2005 09:29 PMVoter security and transperancy are key. We're going to have to invite NGO's to help monitor the 2006 election.
Call me the optimist but I think they've simply overplayed their hand. They actually believe their own hubris that they can "gay married terrorist" any election. How much of the American public has to standup before they back down? The simple answer is enough, they're going to have to bring back the draft to get enough solders to fight the oil wars. If they strike Iran, it will defend itself by blocking the Straits of Hormuz. They're going to lose. Life isn't as simple as chess, but their near check.
And, if all else fails, they'res always the examples from the Ukrane,Georgia and others.
The new century's here
And the time is right
For marching in the streets.
Hillary Clinton? Are you mad?
Posted by Buck Turgidson at May 20, 2005 11:11 PMHillary Clinton will be quite happy to benefit from their largesse and stack the courts beginning in 2009.
This assumes the Dems will also control the Senate. Republicans, like Hatch, have made it clear that this only applies to nominations that reached the floor.
Recall that Hatch, as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, refused to call hearings on 67 of Bill's nominees. And only the chairman can call hearings...effectively putting all judicial nominations in the hands of only one man.
I agree we should fight it but here's how I think we can fight it to best effect and make its use UNNECESSARY for all practical purposes...at least in the minds of reasonable men and women..
My strategy strikes at the underlying "big reason" the republicans give for NEEDING to use the nuclear option; "judicial activism." Given that that's their cover story, it occurred to me that dems could trump this rhetorical winning hand by proposing alternate judicial nominees acceptible to BOTH repubs and dems while at the same time challenging republicans to withdraw support for the controversial judges replacing them with those compromise nominees who would be acceptible to at least 60 if not more senators and thus avoid the necessity of resorting to the nuclear option. Of course Bush nominated and renominated the controversial 7, but if republicans in the Senate move their support to a bipartisan compromise, those nominees cannot win anyway.
I think this tactic would place the onus on republicans to explain why this idea wouldn't be acceptible, given their strong desire for judges who do not legislate from the bench and in the face of this dangerous anti-constitutional situation RE the use of the nuclear option. With a little work in determining which judges to put on such a list, and with verbal commitments to support them from both dems and republicans, dems could take the high ground for good on the issue.
Perhaps the dems could even pick republican, pro-life judges who have demonstrated a respect for stare decisis and not legislating from the bench, even though their own personal beliefs may be at odds with following established precedent.
I think this would be a strong defensive power move right now which would slingshot us to the front of the pack and help cement public disapproval for the use of the nuclear option and it would force republicans in to either put up or shut up in accepting or rejecting a very reasonable proposal.
Posted by Oleary25 at May 21, 2005 10:51 AMThe "Nuclear Option" occurred when the republicans took control of both houses of congress. When that happened, the public interest took more of a back seat to the interests of the republicans and the fanatics and theives they represtent. Effectively, the congress no longer pretends to oversee the administration. Now, the administration oversee congress. Could the "Nuclear Option" be worst?
Shutting down the senate will actually stop the "Nuclear Option". The filibuster fight could block future Bush and house scams.
Posted by smooth at May 21, 2005 01:45 PMOleary25, you've got a good idea, and as with other good ideas here, tammy thinks: run run run with that.
But tammy : does something different. She sits and waits and agrees but does nothing but sit and say: k.
great ideas, outrage, tired, tammy says: thanks for reading, but
regains her senses
boy king says: I WANT MY SENATE AND HOUSE TO BOW TO ITS KNEES
tammy says: but wait, people matter here. it's not k.
boy king says: I WANT THE COURTS MY WAY
tammy says: where were you in history or civics class? Oh, with mommy, k.
tammy will go back into the shade -- hide from the hot sun
the congress no longer pretends to oversee the administration. Now, the administration oversee congress.
exactly.
Posted by at May 21, 2005 03:13 PMI think Tammy has been in the sun too long...WTF is she babbling about? And talking about herself in 3rd person? Only @theleftcoaster.
Posted by crazymancrazy at May 21, 2005 03:17 PMtammy says: Bob Dole
late
Tammy is talking abiut the Second Coming...
...Things fall apart
The center will not hold.