So who here still believes we should eliminate...

[TexasTiger 13,017]

the filibuster?

[quietfan 233]

the filibuster?

Nice point!

[channonc 466]

I hear the crickets...

[DKW 86 7,440]

Whoever said do away with it? I thought we just wanted to lower the number/percentage needed to end a filibuster.

[channonc 466]

Whoever said do away with it? I thought we just wanted to lower the number/percentage needed to end a filibuster.

And what percentage would you say?

[DKW 86 7,440]

Whoever said do away with it? I thought we just wanted to lower the number/percentage needed to end a filibuster.

And what percentage would you say?

60 votes rather than 2/3rds?

How about 50% +1?

[channonc 466]

That would never be passed. It is way too close to an up or down vote.

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

The fillibuster was never to be eliminated. Banning the use of a fillibuster to deny a presidential nominee from getting a floor vote was the issue. The reason being that a floor vote would mean the nominee would only need a simple majority to be confirmed, but a super majority is needed to override a fillibuster. Thus, the use of the fillibuster in nominee situations imposes a greater degree of Senate scrutiny than is called for in the Constitution. For this reason I think the fillibuster needs to be banned with respect to voting presidential nominees up or down -- I will hold this opinion regardless of which party controls the Senate or White House.

[channonc 466]

The fillibuster was never to be eliminated. Banning the use of a fillibuster to deny a presidential nominee from getting a floor vote was the issue. The reason being that a floor vote would mean the nominee would only need a simple majority to be confirmed, but a super majority is needed to override a fillibuster. Thus, the use of the fillibuster in nominee situations imposes a greater degree of Senate scrutiny than is called for in the Constitution. For this reason I think the fillibuster needs to be banned with respect to voting presidential nominees up or down -- I will hold this opinion regardless of which party controls the Senate or White House.

I disagree. If the person is truly qualified for the position, they will have no problem finding the 60 votes.

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

The fillibuster was never to be eliminated. Banning the use of a fillibuster to deny a presidential nominee from getting a floor vote was the issue. The reason being that a floor vote would mean the nominee would only need a simple majority to be confirmed, but a super majority is needed to override a fillibuster. Thus, the use of the fillibuster in nominee situations imposes a greater degree of Senate scrutiny than is called for in the Constitution. For this reason I think the fillibuster needs to be banned with respect to voting presidential nominees up or down -- I will hold this opinion regardless of which party controls the Senate or White House.

I disagree. If the person is truly qualified for the position, they will have no problem finding the 60 votes.

I'm sure it would be even better for the country if all nominees were unaminous picks, but that isn't the issue. The use of the fillibuster in these instances is at odds with the Constitution. The Constitution only requires a simple majority for confirmation. If you desire that the Constitution be changed to reflect a 60-vote super majority, then do it legally through the amendment process.

[Tigermike 3,053]

That would never be passed. It is way too close to an up or down vote.

And God forbid there be an actual vote.

[quietfan 233]

That would never be passed. It is way too close to an up or down vote.

Besides, wouldn't a bill to weaken the filibuster always be filibustered itself by which ever party was in the minority at the time?

The use of the fillibuster in these instances is at odds with the Constitution. The Constitution only requires a simple majority for confirmation. If you desire that the Constitution be changed to reflect a 60-vote super majority, then do it legally through the amendment process.

Actuality, the filibuster is completely constitutional, in that the Constitution gives the Senate the power to establish its own operating rules of parliamentary procedure, and one of the rules it decided upon itself was to install this extra layer of protection against a dictatorship of the majority. Its choice of the filibuster is 100% constitutional, but it can certainly amend its rules if it choose to do so.

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

That would never be passed. It is way too close to an up or down vote.

Besides, wouldn't a bill to weaken the filibuster always be filibustered itself by which ever party was in the minority at the time?

The use of the fillibuster in these instances is at odds with the Constitution. The Constitution only requires a simple majority for confirmation. If you desire that the Constitution be changed to reflect a 60-vote super majority, then do it legally through the amendment process.

Actuality, the filibuster is completely constitutional, in that the Constitution gives the Senate the power to establish its own operating rules of parliamentary procedure, and one of the rules it decided upon itself was to install this extra layer of protection against a dictatorship of the majority. Its choice of the filibuster is 100% constitutional, but it can certainly amend its rules if it choose to do so.

For your perusal: Link

Judical Filibusters: Advice and Consent

by Douglas W. Kmiec

“Anyone whose life, liberty or property is at issue before a federal tribunal is a potential filibuster victim.”

Douglas W. Kmiec is a Professor of Constitutional Law at Pepperdine University and was the Head of the Office of Legal Counsel for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.

Taking Issue

Judicial Filibusters

NPR.org, March 24, 2005 · Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) says he has other "pressing business" and is annoyed that President Bush has re-nominated appellate court nominees who have been filibustered. He and other Democrats intend no letup in their misguided strategy.

But judicial filibusters are a constitutional blunder. Prior to this last Congress, a judicial filibuster was attempted only once, when LBJ tried to elevate Abe Fortas to be chief justice. Whether the debate over Fortas was a filibuster is an open question, but when he withdrew, he likely lacked majority support in the Senate.

What's happening today is entirely different. President's Bush's appeals court nominees do have majority support in the Senate. What they are being denied is a vote of the full Senate because of a constitutionally questionable Senate rule requiring 60 members to cut off debate (to end a judicial filibuster).

This contradicts what the framers anticipated. The Senate's advice and consent, Hamilton reasoned in Federalist Nos. 76 and 77 would be exercised "by the whole body, by [the] entire branch of the legislature."

Obstructing judicial nominees with majority support thwarts the president and exacerbates the increasingly heavy workload of the independent judiciary. Anyone whose life, liberty or property is at issue before a federal tribunal is a potential filibuster victim.

The Constitution allows the Senate to set its own rules. Yet, this rule-making power is not unlimited. The Senate could not adopt a rule categorically excluding women or African-Americans or Catholics from serving on the federal bench. The Bill of Rights would rightly trump such bias. And while there is no similar trump expressly denying judicial filibusters, the supermajority rule is nevertheless constitutionally deficient for one simple reason: this Senate -- the 109th -- has never adopted it.

The 60-vote cloture rule is a carryover from a previous Senate and merely imposed on the present body. Every two years, the Senate's composition changes as one-third of its membership stands for election. An ever-enlarging group of senators, led by John Cornyn (R-TX), has rightly asked why they, as more recently elected members, have never had a say over Senate process.

According to the present Democrat leadership, the new guys are just out of luck. You see, they say, rule changes require 67 votes. And where did that rule come from? Yep, it, too, comes from a previous Senate. And so it goes. New senators are elected, but they are stuck with old rules effectively denying their representational voice.

This cannot be, and is, not the law. An unbroken chain of Supreme Court rulings anchored in English common law as venerable as Sir William Blackstone provides that "every succeeding Legislature possesses the same jurisdiction and power… as its predecessors. The latter must have the same power of repeal and modification which the former had of enactment, neither more nor less."

Senate Democrats have disregarded this ancient precept and are operating outside the Constitution. Of course, Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist is contemplating (gasp) asserting the prerogative of a majority of the existing Senate to change the carryover rules to allow a similar majority to exercise the power of advice and consent. Derisively, Democrats have dubbed this "the nuclear option," but in truth, it is the constitutional one.

And don't just take my word for it. Consider the following:

"[T]he members of the Senate who met in 1789 and approved the first body of rules did not for one moment think, or believe, or pretend, that all succeeding Senates would be bound by that Senate."

Or: "By what logic can the Senate of 1917 or 1949 or 1959 bind the Senate of [today]... The immediate issue is whether a simple majority of the Senate is entitled to change Senate rules… t is clear that this question should be settled by a majority vote."

Or simply: "[senate rules] could be changed by majority vote."

The authorities: Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), the dean of Senate procedure and author of a magisterial history of the Senate on the Senate floor in 1979; Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) on the floor in 1975; and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) in colloquy with me before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2003.

Nuclear option, indeed. Send Dick Cheney over to the Hill to preside over a majority-passed rule amendment restoring the right of a simple majority to close debate on judicial nominations. And then the Senate can go on to that other "pressing business" of Sen. Reid. And since some of that business may soon include consideration of a Supreme Court nominee, better to get the rules straight -- and constitutional -- now.

[CCTAU 3,345]

The fillibuster was never to be eliminated. Banning the use of a fillibuster to deny a presidential nominee from getting a floor vote was the issue. The reason being that a floor vote would mean the nominee would only need a simple majority to be confirmed, but a super majority is needed to override a fillibuster. Thus, the use of the fillibuster in nominee situations imposes a greater degree of Senate scrutiny than is called for in the Constitution. For this reason I think the fillibuster needs to be banned with respect to voting presidential nominees up or down -- I will hold this opinion regardless of which party controls the Senate or White House.

I disagree. If the person is truly qualified for the position, they will have no problem finding the 60 votes.

THAT is probably the funniest damn thing you have ever said. As if qualifications mean anything other than who's got the most votes these days.

[MDM4AU 336]

The fillibuster was never to be eliminated. Banning the use of a fillibuster to deny a presidential nominee from getting a floor vote was the issue. The reason being that a floor vote would mean the nominee would only need a simple majority to be confirmed, but a super majority is needed to override a fillibuster. Thus, the use of the fillibuster in nominee situations imposes a greater degree of Senate scrutiny than is called for in the Constitution. For this reason I think the fillibuster needs to be banned with respect to voting presidential nominees up or down -- I will hold this opinion regardless of which party controls the Senate or White House.

I disagree. If the person is truly qualified for the position, they will have no problem finding the 60 votes.

In a perfect world.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

The fillibuster was never to be eliminated. Banning the use of a fillibuster to deny a presidential nominee from getting a floor vote was the issue. The reason being that a floor vote would mean the nominee would only need a simple majority to be confirmed, but a super majority is needed to override a fillibuster. Thus, the use of the fillibuster in nominee situations imposes a greater degree of Senate scrutiny than is called for in the Constitution. For this reason I think the fillibuster needs to be banned with respect to voting presidential nominees up or down -- I will hold this opinion regardless of which party controls the Senate or White House.

I disagree. If the person is truly qualified for the position, they will have no problem finding the 60 votes.

In a perfect world.

60 votes should at least keep either side from passing/confirming their most extreme legislation/appointment. I don't want the Dems to do away with it now that they are in power.

[Tigermike 3,053]

60 votes should at least keep either side from passing/confirming their most extreme legislation/appointment. I don't want the Dems to do away with it now that they are in power.

I don't think you have to worry about that.

[CCTAU 3,345]

The fillibuster was never to be eliminated. Banning the use of a fillibuster to deny a presidential nominee from getting a floor vote was the issue. The reason being that a floor vote would mean the nominee would only need a simple majority to be confirmed, but a super majority is needed to override a fillibuster. Thus, the use of the fillibuster in nominee situations imposes a greater degree of Senate scrutiny than is called for in the Constitution. For this reason I think the fillibuster needs to be banned with respect to voting presidential nominees up or down -- I will hold this opinion regardless of which party controls the Senate or White House.

I disagree. If the person is truly qualified for the position, they will have no problem finding the 60 votes.

In a perfect world.

60 votes should at least keep either side from passing/confirming their most extreme legislation/appointment. I don't want the Dems to do away with it now that they are in power.

The problem is to the dims, anybody who is not a dim is considered "most extreme."