Should the filibuster be banned?

Phil

Diabloii.Net Member
Should the filibuster be banned?

Filibuster Fight

As many of you probably know, there is a battle going on dealing with filibusters and preventing candidates from being nominated to any number of positions, especially Supreme Court Justice appointments.

What do you think? Should the filibuster be disallowed?

phil
 

DurfBarian

Diabloii.Net Member
If we ban it we need to ban it retroactively and get up-or-down votes on all the judge nominees Clinton put up. Oh, and Papa Bush. And Reagan. And Carter, Ford, Nixon . . . Go back far enough and most of the nominees will be sacks of bones in a graveyard somewhere, but dammit, they still deserve a vote!The Repubs/Dems have gone too far in filibustering just to serve their conservative/liberal scheming!

It's an old tradition that serves the purpose of keeping a balance of powers in government. The Republicans have about as much business whining about its use as the Democrats have whining about increased spending programs from the Bush administration.

:thumbsup:
 

kryo

Diabloii.Net Member
Only the Democrats have ever tried to apply the filibuster to judicial nominees (and that's the "new" abuse that is subject to banning, not the filibuster in entirety).

The Republicans have only ever kept the nominees in committee indefinitely--which, while just as annoying, is a perfectly legitimate (constitutional) tactic... the Dems could do it too if they got a majority on the committee. But they can't right now, so they have no right/ability to deny a vote.
 

jimmyboy

Diabloii.Net Member
kryo said:
Only the Democrats have ever tried to apply the filibuster to judicial nominees (and that's the "new" abuse that is subject to banning, not the filibuster in entirety).

The Republicans have only ever kept the nominees in committee indefinitely--which, while just as annoying, is a perfectly legitimate (constitutional) tactic... the Dems could do it too if they got a majority on the committee. But they can't right now, so they have no right/ability to deny a vote.
Why is a "judicial" fillabuster unconstitutional whereas a fillibuster on other issues legit?
 

kryo

Diabloii.Net Member
The full Senate's role in judicial nominations is to advise and consent (or decline). It was never intended that nominees could be held up indefinitely once they were passed from committee to the Senate floor. Thus if you want to stop a nominee, get a majority on the committee. That method already exists and is perfectly legitimate.

Holding the nominations indefinitely as is being done now only serves to backlog the courts (being judgeless) even worse than they already are. If they were approved, they could start work, and if they were denied, someone else could be nominated. As it stands though, their jobs go undone.
 

maccool

Diabloii.Net Member
kryo said:
Holding the nominations indefinitely as is being done now only serves to backlog the courts (being judgeless) even worse than they already are. If they were approved, they could start work, and if they were denied, someone else could be nominated. As it stands though, their jobs go undone.
You mean the 47 vacancies currently, as opposed to the 96 vacancies when Bush took office in 2001? And because everyone needs a little Clin-Ton, in 1999, there were 67 vacancies. dirty commies

You'd be better off saying that the increase in the number of federal cases has led to the backlog instead of watching commercials on TV and then parrotting them here.
 

Johnny

Banned
maccool said:
watching commercials on TV and then parrotting them here.
Living in a country where the parties doesnt make commersilas to counter eachother and where they barely make any commersials to advertise thier own existance I found it unbellivable at first til I saw the republicans anti Kerry TV commersial on a webpage where some guy runs around at a wedding kissing other people and other wierd things.

What a huge waste of money.
 

KillerAim

Diabloii.Net Member
jimmyboy:
Why is a "judicial" fillabuster unconstitutional whereas a fillibuster on other issues legit?
Neither are unconstitutional, however there is some logic behind arguing that a filibuster over legislation makes more sense then a filibuster over the appointment of a judge or Cabinet position.

A threat of a filibuster or an actual filibuster itself could easily lead to a modification of the proposed legislation via amendments or re-writes. In other words, the majority might be able to sway enough of the minority to go along with the bill if they modify its wording. Compromise is the rule in this case.

This can’t be the case with a judge. The majority cannot offer a compromise; the Senate either approves or rejects each candidate. That is why the Republicans now argue that judges deserve an "up or down" vote. It is also the same argument used by the major players in the Democratic Party just a few years ago when they were in power.
 

jimmyboy

Diabloii.Net Member
kryo said:
The full Senate's role in judicial nominations is to advise and consent (or decline). It was never intended that nominees could be held up indefinitely once they were passed from committee to the Senate floor. Thus if you want to stop a nominee, get a majority on the committee. That method already exists and is perfectly legitimate.

Holding the nominations indefinitely as is being done now only serves to backlog the courts (being judgeless) even worse than they already are. If they were approved, they could start work, and if they were denied, someone else could be nominated. As it stands though, their jobs go undone.
Sure you want to stick with this answer?
 
Top