I have felt for some time that the Founding Fathers made a terrible mistake in their design of the Judiciary branch of the Federal Government. When every Justice must run the gauntlet of approval from the Executive and Legislative branches, just how independent can they really be? If only lackey’s of the Executive and Legislative branches, ever become justice’s, how hard are they really going to fight for the State’s and the People’s rights, against a power hungry central government?
The States and the People should be choosing the Justices that are going to be protecting them from unconstitutional Federal Government over-reach. As things now stand the diffusion and division of power desired by the founding fathers, has been subverted, and the American people are paying a heavy price in lost Freedoms and Liberty.
The push for ideological purity was driven by direct primaries for the presidential nomination. Thank you McGovernistas. Pure democracy to clear out the smoke filled room leads to worse government once again.
Actually, this is a long range strategic move on the part of the democrats to ensure that only democrat/liberal judges can claim to have “the experience of the bench”.
This continual rationalization of baby steps pushing me toward the cliff edge, in the name of “moderation”, “bi-partisianship”, and “be reasonable, it’s such a small step!”, will end with someone going over the edge: Conrary to expectations and deep desires, it will not be me.
Ooof. My bad. They’re playing volleyball, and this is the setup for the spike on Immigration “reform”.
And the GOP is exactly as hypocritical as the
Democrats in now violently denouncing a measure they themselves once proposed. -VM
I know Jimmy Carter believes that lusting in his heart is as bad as actually commiting the act. Apparently this author has similar beliefs. I thought there was a difference between ‘once proposing’ and actually pulling the trigger. I didn’t think Mitch McConnel’s denunciation was all that ‘violent’ either. I propose (but will not actually deliver) a slap for this writer.
If, when the GOP is next in control of the Senate, they move to reinstate the filibuster instead of finishing the work of eliminating it, then I’ll accept your claim that they’re less guilty of hypocrisy than the Democrats are. But we both know that’s never going to happen.
“The result of this vote will likely be to further depress public confidence in Washington generally and in Congress and the federal judiciary more specifically.” The punditry thinks that Americans understand what just happened? If 20% of the people understand this, it would be surprising. Next time the Republicans take power in the Senate, there will be cries to repeal this move in the interest of “minority rights.”
There will indeed be such cries, but I’ll be genuinely shocked if those cries are actually heeded by a GOP Senate majority.
The political ruling class has been undermining the institutions of governance and law for some time now. The only news they are no longer concerned about concealing it
“Every country has the government it deserves”
Joseph de Maistre
“We the People” not merely elected these so-called “leaders” but keep reelecting them.
I think what’s been forgotten is the role Dear Leader has played in this situation. He’s been ignoring the Constitution and laws he is supposed to abide by for the last 5 plus years. He rules by fiat and decree now. It’s creepy.
It’s one thing to fault both parties for hypocritically blathering about the importance of keeping the filibuster. Yet, the ones who pulled the trigger is at fault. There is no moral equivalence here, the maliciousness solely belongs to the political cultists of the Democrat party.
There’s nothing immoral about changing Senate procedural rules to conform with the Constitutional vision of how that body was intended to function. It was politically aggressive of Senator Reid to invoke the “nuclear option” to alter those rules; but Senator McConnell’s unprecedentedly pervasive use of the filibuster was politically aggressive as well.
And pray tell, from what fount does “the Constitutional vision” of a purely majoritarian Senate spring?
Art. I of the constitution sets forth a number of specific, limited circumstances in which a Senate supermajority is required (overturning a Presidential veto, ratifying a treaty with a foreign power, etc.) on all other votes, as in the house, the Constitution states that they will be passed if they’re supported by a simple majority.
The filibuster was an archaic, undemocratic, and frankly bizarre institution that the Framers never envisioned or intended to create. Were it not for the deep reluctance of the judicial branch to meddle in the political operations of the legislature, it would have been ruled unconstitutional and outlawed two centuries ago. On balance, the Republic has been poorly served by this practice, and I’m not the tiniest bit sorry to see it scaled back.
Does this mean that the Republicans will finish the job of eliminating the filibuster when the shoe is on the other foot (as it inevitably will be)? I certainly hope so, not because I’m a fan of Republican governance, but because crippling governmental dysfunction serves absolutely no one.
The Framers envisioned a Senate in which a supermajority would be required for only a handful of specifically enumerated actions: the ratification of a treaty, the amendment of the Constitution, the expulsion of a sitting Senator, and the impeachment of a federal official. For everything else, their intention was that the majority of Senators should rule. In correcting this long-standing mistake, the Senate has refreshed my trust in that institution, not undermined it.
First, do you really want a Senate that’s more like the House?
Second, I’m one person that is delighted with “crippling governmental dysfunction”. Government is a menace, and the less it does, the happier I am.
If there’s one thing I’d like to see, it’s for more of these hot button issues like education, health care, abortion, etc. to move back to the states.
If a state government makes a mess of things, you can always move. And the competition for rich taxpayers and businesses at least gives the states pause now and then over some of their stupider ideas. The federal government has no such worries, and thinks it can remake the economy with a wave of its hand (or the excretion of 2000 pages of unread legislation.)
Agreed. You want fast movement, stick with the states. The national government is too deeply involved in too much for its own good and ours.
“The filibuster was an archaic, undemocratic, and frankly bizarre institution that the Framers never envisioned or intended to create.”
Um, you know this because . . . ?
Have you read Federalist Papers, specifically # 62 (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_62.html)?
If tyranny of the majority was always present in the FFs’ thoughts, if Thomas Jefferson wrote the rule, and if it was adopted by one of the first Congresses, what’s your evidence that it the filibuster was NOT an intentional protection for the minority?
Federalist #62 supports my position, not yours. It discusses the protection of minority interests by means of: 1) creating a second chamber of the legislature, selected by different means than the first; 2) giving the states equal representation in that chamber, whatever their size; and 3) giving the members of this body a long enough term of office -6 years- to give them some independence from having to heed every transient swing in public opinion. All of *those* minority protections made it into the Constitution. The filibuster did not.
Just because you (or your favorite partisan hack) assert that “the Framers never envisioned or intended to create” supermajoritarian features such as the fillibuster does not make it so.
Indeed, America’s founding generation was decidedly anti-democratic. The “legacy” that you describe belongs instead to the Progressives.
If the Framers wanted to impose a supermajority requirement on Senate votes, all it would have taken was an extra line of penmanship at the appropriate place in Art. I.
The compromise during the Bush Administration had a few key points. The Republicans agreed to refrain from changing and rules. In exchange for this, the Democrats agreed to refrain from using the filibuster against judicial nominees, except in extraordinary circumstances. As a result, most of Bush’s ultra conservative nominees were confirmed.
Now, the GOP will not confirm ANYONE to the D.C. Circuit. They are not saying that Obama needs to appoint more moderates, they are in effect saying that anyone appointed by Obama is not acceptable. Is this really an equivalent situation?
In what alternate universe are Peter Keisler, John Roberts and Miguel Estrada sitting on the D.C. circuit?
Yet in the reality in which we actually live, Sri Srinivasan was nominated by President Obama, confirmed by a vote of 97-0, and is now sitting on the D.C. circuit.
“Yet blame for yesterday’s bad vote doesn’t just rest on all those, Republican and Democrat, who over the years have slighted their common duty to strengthen the foundations of American democracy. Is rests on the presidents who have gradually and progressively gamed the judicial appointment system to seek maximum ideological advantage from each court appointment. It rests on the senators in both parties who have abused the confirmation process to counter-game presidential court gaming. It rests with single issue advocacy groups and ideological gender groups on both sides of the political spectrum who encourage people to prioritize positions over the health and sustainability of the political system overall.”
Democracy is difficult. As emotionally committed one may be to democracy, operating it is as hard to balance as an object in perpetual motion (people in general are not the least bit democratic at heart). Nevertheless, Democracy remains a vital American Ideal and which can only enrich our nation.
That said and in line with WRM’s above quote, “this system of popular elections was not one devised by the perspicacious Founding Fathers but represents a later dubious embroidery on the basic institutional system, an embroidery that most of the Founders would have rejected as absurd. Madison, for example, was astute enough to discern what would happen under the universal franchise. The Fathers often hymned about had no confidence in a universal franchise that would elevate poor boys in urgent and continual need of funds to high office, there to be readily tempted and seduced and to acquire personal interests of their own that ran against those of the populace.”
The above implication vis-a-vis Founders suggests that politics like any other discipline requires qualified practitioners. Yet, Democratic politics as practice in U.S., contrary to democratic theory, is full of…and is not an area of expertise that can be readily practiced with proper success by anybody. For the uninitiated, ther exist in America both theoretical and practical politics. Quackery is the very essence of being a politician on the American scene today (of course making exception for the exceptions). But despite WRM’s lamentation, officeholders (whatever one may say of them) meet the criteria of the broad electorate. In America, they have “what” it takes to gain acceptance by the populace (perhaps resulting in: decades old institutional conventions being irrelevant, ideological and partisan factions normalized, and a gratuitous media feeding the incredulity).
One final note: “what made the Founding Fathers and the signers of the Declaration of Independence so noteworthy was not that they were men of property, they were noteworthy because they happened also to be men of broad learning and insight ready to defer to those of their own number like James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton who showed especially sharp insight.”
Thank God it was Dimmycrats that did it. Maybe now there will be some modest effort to hold Dimmycrats accountable for their consequences instead of the usual beaming warm affection they get for their disastrous good intentions.
I have a prediction, so please note: When the Dims turn out the lights on this Congress and leave the keys for the Republican majority to succeed them in Jan ’15, they will reinstitute the filibuster by the same air-headed majority that killed it yesterday, thus forcing Republicans to revive the majority rule and take the heat or do without it.
Somewhere the late Robert Byrd is having a screaming tantrum.
‘And the GOP is exactly as hypocritical as the Democrats in now violently denouncing a measure they themselves once proposed.’
Which is relatively worse, the person who threatens murder or the person who commits it? I’d say the Dem’s hands are far more dirty…
What the heck are you talking about? Judicial nominations are, have always been, and always will be, partisan politics. Democrats nominate judges that they believe are partisan to their viewpoint and Republicans do the same.
If anything, the end of the filibuster will make things less partisan. If a president whose party has a Senate majority nominates a candidate who is nonetheless not approved, it will be on non-partisan grounds that the Senate vote the candidate down.
With the filibuster, the Republicans essentially can veto any and all candidates. How is that not politically partisan?
As a Kirkian conservative, I understand this argument, but it is still wrong under today’s circumstances.
The fact is that to repeal or reform the blue model, we will need simple majorities in the Senate. The blue model is still strong enough that a 60 vote threshold will cement it pkace forever.
We need to get rid of the filibuster for ALL legislation, win elections, and dismantle and replace the tattererrd and infantilizing nanny state.