If you're a Democrat, then a filibuster is absolutely well within Constitutional grounds and is necessary to keep this far-right justice off the bench. If you're a Republican, then it is most likely unconstitutional and would only serve to keep a very well-qualified justice off the bench. And if you're Jim Jeffords, you flip a coin. Things are so politicized these days that President Bush could have nominated Oliver Wendell Holmes to the bench and Democrats would have fought it.
Samuel Alito will be confirmed and a filibuster won't happen. Even Harry Reid and Joe Biden don't support a filibuster. And several more Democratic senators don't who are voting against his confirmation.
Posts: 3474 | Location: Colfax, WA--the home of the world's largest chain-saw sculpture!! | Registered: 06-03-02
If I understand the rules correctly, and I may not, it would take 60 votes to break a fillibuster. Not supporting a filibuster and voting to end it are two different things.
Jelp, you seem to be forgetting that Roberts, who is probably just as conservative as Alito, was confirmed by a vote of 78 to 22. All 55 Republican Senators and half of the 44 Democratic Senators voted to confirm him. (Independent Senator James Jeffords, of Vermont, also voted to confirm.)
Filibuster facts from Wikipedia -
The first noted use of the filibuster was in an effort to prevent the attempt of Jacksonian Democrats - then in the majority - to expunge the Senate's 1834 censure of President Andrew Jackson.
In 1917 a rule allowing for the cloture of debate (ending a filibuster) was adopted by the Democrat-controlled Senate [3] at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson[4]. From 1917 to 1949, the requirement for cloture was two-thirds of those voting.
In 1946 Southern Democrats blocked a vote on a bill proposed by Dennis Chavez of New Mexico (S. 101) that would have created a permanent Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC) to prevent discrimination in the work place. The filibuster lasted weeks, and Senator Chavez was forced to remove the bill from consideration after a failed cloture vote even though he had enough votes to pass the bill. As civil rights loomed on the Senate agenda, this rule was revised in 1949 to allow cloture on any measure or motion by two-thirds of the entire Senate membership; in 1959 the threshold was restored to two-thirds of those voting. After a series of filibusters led by Southern Democrats in the 1960s over civil rights legislation, the Democrat-controlled Senate [5] in 1975 revised its cloture rule so that three-fifths of the Senate (usually 60 senators) could limit debate.
In current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits procedural filibusters, in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses.
On May 23, 14 senators – seven Democrats and seven Republicans – led by John McCain (R-AZ) and Robert Byrd (D-WV) brokered a deal to allow three of Bush's nominees a vote on the Senate floor while leaving two others subject to a filibuster. The seven Democrats promised not to filibuster Bush's nominees except under "extraordinary circumstances," while the seven Republicans promised to oppose the nuclear option. Specifically, the Democrats promised to stop the filibuster on Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William H. Pryor, Jr., who had all been filibustered in the Senate before. In return, the Republicans would stop the effort to ban the filibuster for judicial nominees."Extraordinary circumstances" was not defined in advance. The term is open for interpretation but the Republicans and Democrats will have to agree on what it means if any nominee is to be blocked.
According to a Historical Moments Essay on the U.S. Senate website, the Republican Party was the first to initiate a filibuster against a judicial nominee in 1968, forcing Democratic president Lyndon Johnson to withdraw the nomination of Associate Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas to be chief justice.
Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC) set a record in 1957 by filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours and 18 minutes, although the bill ultimately passed.
Posts: 16563 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Thanks for the filibuster info, DG. I did not know that a filibuster was involved in the Fortas nomination.
My Constitutional question is one of the Senate nor fulfilling its responsibilities:
Article II, Section 2: (The President) "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court...."
Precedent aside, is there some gray area here which might warrant clarification in the future? Does a filibuster mean that the responsibility is not fulfilled, or that one Senator can stop the Consent all by himself?
I am probably too twisted (no comments ) but I think the Republicans might like to lure a Democrat into a filibuster. If the filibuster is broken, the Democrats will look like they don't have their act together. Maybe we won't care, but it's how politicians think.
Posts: 7608 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02
CNN.com says, in an article about Kerry and his attempts to marshal Democrats and filibuster, says that some view Kerry's moves as an attempt to win back the Left, after Hillary's centrist moves, and that Kerry knows the filibuster will fail. (The Left has always loved someone who stands up for principles in a losing cause.)
My read on the Constitutionality question is that a filibuster can effectively end a nomination if the President withdraws the nomination. This can be construed as "advising" the President that no action can be taken in the Senate until either a) the filibuster is broken or b) the nomination is withdrawn. Technically, a filibuster does not eliminate a vote on the nominee, it just delays it until the filibuster ends.
More about filibusters from Wikipedia -
Filibusters have become much more common in recent decades. Twice as many filibusters took place in the 1991-1992 legislative session as in the entire nineteenth century.
A filibuster can be defeated by the governing party if they leave the debated issue on the agenda indefinitely, without adding anything else to the agenda. Thurmond's attempt to filibuster the Civil Rights Act was defeated when Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson refused to refer any further business to the Senate, which required the filibuster to be kept up indefinitely. Instead, the opponents were all given a chance to speak and the matter eventually was forced to a vote.*
*Few men knew and understood politics better than LBJ. - DG
I'm for the filibuster. Ultimately I think that Alito will get the job, but at least the Democrats can show the American people that they have a spine.
If Bush wants to put people like this on the SC, he should have to work a lot harder for it.
I'm for the filibuster. Ultimately I think that Alito will get the job, but at least the Democrats can show the American people that they have a spine.
What the democrats showed the American people is how stupid and petty they can be. This whole thing was a farce on the Democratic side. A few of them like Teddy boy (splash) and Kerry made fools of themselves.
Alito is in.
Posts: 3165 | Location: From the Mountains to the Sea. | Registered: 06-08-02
I can only think of a few times over the last four decades or so when the announcement of an SC nominee did not generate wailing and the gnashing of teeth from one camp or another.
"CNN.com says, in an article about Kerry and his attempts to marshal Democrats and filibuster, says that some view Kerry's moves as an attempt to win back the Left, after Hillary's centrist moves, and that Kerry knows the filibuster will fail. (The Left has always loved someone who stands up for principles in a losing cause.) "
The Left needs to get over this. And Kerry needs to accept the fact that HE gave up his principles when he conceded in 2004, when people were still willing to stand behind him in this state and demand a recount. So a big "F" to Mr. Kerry. Hillary needs to accept this country isn't yet ready for a female president. When I stood and waited for my turn to vote in 2004, a good number of people around me said they'd vote for Hillary to get Bill back in the White House. They don't have a clue or a care what she's about, they just miss Bill.
The Dems need to stop talking about having principles and start showing they have some. There was a great suggestion on TruthOut's blog, that the Dems should walk out of the State of the Union speech. Did they? No, that would take a spine and guts. I agree with RoverRoad- Bushie should have had to work harder to get Alito on the SC.
Posts: 1196 | Location: A danger to this country and the free world | Registered: 03-18-04
Things are so politicized these days that President Bush could have nominated Oliver Wendell Holmes to the bench and Democrats would have fought it. 
) but I think the Republicans might like to lure a Democrat into a filibuster. If the filibuster is broken, the Democrats will look like they don't have their act together. Maybe we won't care, but it's how politicians think.
