Althouse: "Democrats, who filibustered their own share of Republican judicial nominees before they took control of the Senate..."

November 21, 2013

"Democrats, who filibustered their own share of Republican judicial nominees before they took control of the Senate..."

"... have said that what the minority party has done is to effectively rewrite the law by requiring a 60-vote supermajority threshold for high-level presidential appointments. Once rare, filibusters of high-level nominees are now routine."

Harry Reid moves to end the filibuster for judicial nominees. [UPDATE: They did it!]

Short term: What a flood of new judges we will have! Long term: The American people will see what sort of judges Obama and the Senate majority installs, the GOP will highlight their "left-wing activism" (or whatever it might be called), the American people will respond (perhaps becoming alarmed), a Republican President will (sooner or later) be elected, he or she will feel fully empowered to pick excitingly conservative judges (the Bork kind, not the bland kind), Democrats will rail against their "right-wing activism," the American people will respond (taking sides between the conservative and liberal activist judges and the role of the judiciary in our democracy), and who knows what will happen in the next presidential election and the one after that and after that?

Think about how that long-term game will play out and answer this poll:

100 comments:

rhhardin said...: I'd predict a revolt before it plays out electorally.

Two more wise latinas should do it.; 11/21/13, 11:02 AM
Matt Sablan said...: If they lose the Senate in the next election, I'm pretty sure before the new guys are sworn in, they'll change the rules back.

Because that's what Democrats have done with picking replacement senators, etc. Cynicism: It's sad.; 11/21/13, 11:05 AM
PB said...: The obstruction by the White House in providing necessary information for Congress to perform it's oversight function is at heart of the problem. The republicans are using the lever of government available to them to try and force the administration to do what it is legally required to do.

All this is a solid argument for less government.; 11/21/13, 11:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Long term, you are dead.
Their judges will twist the laws on the bench. Whatever agenda they fail to accomplish, the judges will finish for them. Obama chooses which laws to enforce, his judges make laws on the bench. Reid believes he'll lose the Senate, and tries to pre-emptively defang the Republican Congress.; 11/21/13, 11:11 AM
mccullough said...: Good news for conservatives who want more conservative judges. No more Souters; 11/21/13, 11:11 AM
Pettifogger said...: My vote is in a small minority, but I am a pessimist. I based my vote on a bet that the MSM spin will continue to control the public narrative.; 11/21/13, 11:11 AM
mccullough said...: The funny thing is that Senator Obama believed in filibustering judicial nominees. Another change of heart in The Education of Barack Obama. If you like your judicial filibuster, you can keep it.; 11/21/13, 11:14 AM
Matt Sablan said...: To answer the question: I think that activism in the courts will, after an initial uptick, be curtailed. People who like the idea of activism in the courts don't actually like the IDEA of activism. They like the idea of THEIR activists doing things.

Once both sides get burned, it'll enter a sort of cold war. At least, I'd hope so. It could also escalate into judicial silliness.; 11/21/13, 11:15 AM
Sofa King said...: My choice wasn't on the list: "Enthusiasm for exciting judges will lead to a preference for worse, but more interesting judges."; 11/21/13, 11:18 AM
Chef Mojo said...: So with the filibuster nuked, does this mean that the Republicans can repeal Obamacare with a simple majority when they retake the Senate?; 11/21/13, 11:18 AM
Henry said...: You need an option for "none whatsoever"

I think there could be greater ability for a wider range of judges to be nominated, but I don't expect that to have any effect on the American political mind.; 11/21/13, 11:19 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "So with the filibuster nuked, does this mean that the Republicans can repeal Obamacare with a simple majority when they retake the Senate?"

-- Oh, the hoisting on the petards.; 11/21/13, 11:22 AM
Harold said...: I wonder if this means that Harry Reid figures that they are going to lose the Senate so they might as well get as many judges on the bench as possible. I don't think much of him as a person but he surely is smart enough to realize that this change will give power to whoever controls the Senate.; 11/21/13, 11:22 AM
Chris said...: For fun, listen for Democrats, who previously mocked GWB for doing so, pronouncing "nuclear" as "nucular".; 11/21/13, 11:22 AM
Henry said...: Personally, I'm fine with this. I think judicial and presidential appointees should be presumed for passage unless there is an unassailable case that they are either incompetent or morally untenable.

The premise for my point (and the Althouse poll) is that the President and the Senate are of the same party.

That prerequisite for easy judge-making will make 2014 and 2016 a little crazier, I suppose, but probably in the stupidest way possible.; 11/21/13, 11:26 AM
clint said...: Chef Mojo said...

"So with the filibuster nuked, does this mean that the Republicans can repeal Obamacare with a simple majority when they retake the Senate?"

Not without the White House as well. The supermajority to override a veto is constitutional, not subject to a simple change in Senate rules.; 11/21/13, 11:27 AM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: It's only the punters who care. The great majority of the electorate neither know or care.; 11/21/13, 11:28 AM
RecChief said...: It strikes me that the Democrats, must really believe their predictions about changing demographics and permanent Democrat Party majorities. Eventually, there will come a time when Democrats are not in power, and if they change the rules to suit themselves now, it will come back and bite them in their collective asses down the road. And Matthew, once the simple majority cat is out of the bag, why would Republicans put it back in? Obama announced this back in October when he said they were going to remake the courts. Read up on the Revolutionary War and the lead up. While we are all taught about "taxation without representation" the thing that exercised John Adams was a disrespect for the law: transporting british soldiers back to england to face british courts rather than standing trial here in the colonies. This court packing scheme can only lead one place, either middlish, long, or longer term.; 11/21/13, 11:29 AM
Anonymous said...: Bad times are coming. One by one, the threads that allow peaceful co-existence in a country as wide and diverse as the U.S.A. are being snipped.

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.; 11/21/13, 11:30 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "And Matthew, once the simple majority cat is out of the bag, why would Republicans put it back in?"

-- Previous experience leads me to answer with: Because they're suckers.; 11/21/13, 11:31 AM
RecChief said...: Of course, as some have posited, this kerfuffle may be of the democrats making in an attempt to distract from DemocratCare. Cynicism at its finest. You should read Mitch McConnell's speech from today; 11/21/13, 11:32 AM
RecChief said...: Matthew Sablan said...
-- Previous experience leads me to answer with: Because they're suckers.

Touche Matthew, I can't argue against that one.; 11/21/13, 11:34 AM
test said...: Prediction: this is good for Republicans. The left is already able to get most of their nominees through regardless of their ideology. Reducing the requirements will allow Republicans to do the same.; 11/21/13, 11:38 AM
test said...: Matthew Sablan said...
If they lose the Senate in the next election, I'm pretty sure before the new guys are sworn in, they'll change the rules back.

It doesn't matter. If Reid does this the first item of business in the new session is to revert to majority confirmations.; 11/21/13, 11:41 AM
SGT Ted said...: The Democrats move is merely tactical.

It certainly isn't principled. So, this rule will be changed again and again, based on whose in office.; 11/21/13, 11:50 AM
James Pawlak said...: This is typical of the desire for immediate/short-term gratification so typical of Democrats and other infants and criminals.; 11/21/13, 11:51 AM
Richard Dolan said...: It's a bit short-sighted to think of the continuing crisis in judicial nominations as a problem of 'judicial activism'. Instead, it's a problem of legitimacy.

For the vast majority of cases, there is no ideological issue at all. Instead, the court is required to apply a statute or some settled rule to a particular set of facts, and the dispute centers on determining those facts. Sometimes the dispute centers on what the statute means, or how a settled rule should be applied in new and unforeseen circumstances (that has been happening for years with Fourth Amendment law, for example). Those cases are not the focus of concern.

The problem arises when courts are called upon to apply the generalities of the constitution (state or federal), such as the Due Process Clause or the Equal Protection Clause. The fight over the appointment of judges reflects the widely held belief (certainly among the Senators, and more widely among everyone who follows this issue) that those cases turn mostly on the judge's ideological perspective rather than any body of law that constrains the result. That is why, for example, Pres Bush was comfortable appointing Alito and Roberts, and Pres Obama was comfortable in appointing Sotomayor and Kagan -- they thought they knew what they were getting in terms of likely results, and the rulings issued by those judges show that neither side has been disappointed in that expectation.

Therein lies the problem of legitimacy. Public acceptance of the judiciary's role in deciding cases turning on social values (abortion, gay rights, race relations, etc.) is based on the idea that the courts are neutrally enforcing some source of law -- we supposedly have a system "of laws and not of men", to paraphrase Adams -- rather than just imposing their own values or preferences, using a fog of legalese to distract the uninitiated. As the general public comes to accept the view of the judicial function that it really is mostly a system of men, not law, on the head-line catching cases, then it's hard to see any justification for allowing a group of superannuated lawyers dressed up in tacky robes to decide such questions for the country.

The nomination and confirmation battles show quite clearly that the Senators view the judiciary that way. The entirely predictable result is that the nomination and confirmation of judges is now a political free for all. However this latest dust-up about the filibuster rule comes out, that political gridlock over confirming judges is likely only to get worse.; 11/21/13, 11:51 AM
Sam's Hideout said...: RecChief: Changing rules to suit? In Massachusetts, the Democratic controlled state legislature changed the rules for selecting a replacement for a US Senate vacancy several times to suit the current conditions. In 2004, when Mitt Romney was Governor and Kerry was running for President, they changed the rule from Governor appoints (until next regular election) to a special election. Then when Ted Kennedy was dying in 2009 and a Democrat back as Governor, they changed it to Governor appoints until a special election. A Kennedy aide was appointed, but then Scott Brown won the special election! Reportedly they've been considering switching back to the original rule of Governor appoints replacement until next regular election...; 11/21/13, 11:53 AM
sonicfrog said...: Answer D: None of the above.

I'm so worn out by all this. Just don't care anymore. But I think Sofa King hit the nail on the head: ""Enthusiasm for exciting judges will lead to a preference for worse, but more interesting judges.""

I really don't think it's going to make that much of a difference. There will be few hard core partisan judges, but I think most will end up being middle-of-the-roaders.; 11/21/13, 11:54 AM
rhhardin said...: The more government does, the less stable the political system is.

Nobody's arguing stability.

The make airplanes nose-heavy for a reason, even though it's less efficient aerodynamically. It's stable.

The airplane doesn't break up.; 11/21/13, 11:56 AM
RecChief said...: Sam's Hideout said...
RecChief: Changing rules to suit?
...

How about the Republican in Maryland(?) who surprising won election for Mayor, then the all Democrat city council voted to strip all the Mayoral Office's powers and make the Mayor no more than a figure head. Election Nullification is what they call that, I believe. Why do Democrats always look for ways to thwart the will of the people?; 11/21/13, 11:59 AM
Seeing Red said...: So Harry just handed more ammo to the repubs to run against Landrieu and the 4 other senators who are shaky?

This is getting very interesting.; 11/21/13, 11:59 AM
Crunchy Frog said...: Call me crazy, but I think a supermajority should be required for every appointment that outlasts the term of the President who made it.; 11/21/13, 12:00 PM
buwaya said...: Neither.
A flood of liberal judges, sitting for a generation, will cause a permanent reduction in the rate of economic growth.; 11/21/13, 12:05 PM
jacksonjay said...: Miguel Angel Estrada Castaneda; 11/21/13, 12:09 PM
Bob Ellison said...: I was in elementary school when I learned about the 60-vote rule in the US Senate. My young, clean mind thought roughly, "WTF?!" It is undemocratic and stupid. Let us celebrate its demise.; 11/21/13, 12:11 PM
Kirk Parker said...: I'm with t-man, RecChief, and possibly (if I read behind their lines correct) rrhardin and Richard Dolan--where's the "Another step (granted a smallone, but still a step) on the road to civil war" option?

Another way to look at the same question: what will happen when the consent of the governed is gone? You might ask one Nicolae Ceausescu about that... oh, wait, you can't: he was swept away as suddenly as the rubble of the statue in Nebuchadnezzar's dream.

Bob Ellison, for some reason, appears to like the thought of a conflagration.

Crunchy,

"Call me crazy, but I think a supermajority should be required for every appointment that outlasts the term of the President who made it. "

While I think this is a very good idea, it's not exactly what the Constitution says. Go ahead and propose wording for an amendment.; 11/21/13, 12:47 PM
Mark said...: Since the filibuster is such a good idea, perhaps Repubs should put that into the House rules.

It seems like the only place they want it is where they're the minority. Funny how that works.; 11/21/13, 12:54 PM
YoungHegelian said...: Why would a major official of political party that has seen its electoral prospects tumble in the course of a few weeks now decide it's time to strip the minority party in the Senate of one of its major weapons? Is Reid really so sure he'll be looking at a Democratic Senate in January, 2015?

The last 6 weeks have made me wonder if the Democrats are looking to take the title of "The Evil and Stupid Party".; 11/21/13, 12:55 PM
cf said...: I'm with T-man and Yeats. I am surprised, Ann, at your "la-la-la" sense of the Big Picture impact, and can hope your expertise and perspective are correct, haha, nothin' but a thang.

But I Combine this with the forces that resulted in this last illegitimate presidential election. We are systematically being robbed of any control over our governance by these "Don't give an inch" overseers, and it is hard to imagine how the corruption will not grow and our Nation's integrity and resilience not continue its recent steep decline.

No joy in Mudville for me tonight.; 11/21/13, 12:58 PM
Saint Croix said...: We are near the end of Roe v. Wade.

Republican President, Republican Senate, Ginsburg or Kennedy retires.

And it's over.; 11/21/13, 1:07 PM
Left Bank of the Charles said...: Obviously, someone on the Supreme Court wants to retire. Just as obviously, that person is a Democrat and wants their successor to be a Democrat. It's got to be either Justice Stephen Breyer (age 75) or Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (age 80).

There is some thought that Justice Ginsburg has a target retirement date of April 2016 in order to match the term of service of Justice Brandeis. Others think she wants to serve another decade.

That leaves Justice Breyer. My money is on him.; 11/21/13, 1:11 PM
Left Bank of the Charles said...: Another possibility is that Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer are looking at the prospect of Democrats losing the Senate in 2014 followed by a two-term Christie presidency in 2016, and both want to retire.; 11/21/13, 1:13 PM
PB said...: Hypocrite Harry.; 11/21/13, 1:14 PM
Anonymous said...: This is a good thing. The lame ass Republicans in the Senate when Bush was President should have done this.

Sadly, we still have a lot of lame ass Senators. So if the Republicans take the majority (A big if), then they will likely change it back, until the Democrats get in the majority again.

The Democrats don't want to play by the same rules and the Republicans are too wimpy to fight them tooth and nail on these things.

So, I didn't vote in your poll, because it didn't have the option, "Lame ass Republicans, if they win, will change it back."; 11/21/13, 1:25 PM
Anonymous said...: President Calvinball; 11/21/13, 1:37 PM
Biff said...: "Long term, what will be the effect on the American political mind?"

How about: Pervasive cynicism regarding the possibility of neutral application of the law, resulting in the collapse of judicial legitimacy and a fundamental challenge to the health of the Republic.; 11/21/13, 1:43 PM
Brando said...: Simple rule--if anyone opposes the fillibuster "on principle" then the rule is that the fillibuster disappears as soon as the minority party becomes the majority in the Senate. That way, if your reasons for opposing it are genuine (e.g., "the majority shouldn't be thwarted by an obstructionist minority!") then you'll be fine letting the other side benefit first.

If you insist that the rule change NOW, then admit that this is all about partisan gain. End of story.; 11/21/13, 1:49 PM
David said...: Harry Reid is the Honey Badger of American politics.; 11/21/13, 2:00 PM
Mark said...: Brando - wouldn't the opposite also be true?

Shouldn't the Republicans support the filibuster in both chambers if it is so good for the Senate?

Shouldn't they vote it in where they are the majority in order to claim any sort of moral superiority?; 11/21/13, 2:03 PM
Jim Gust said...: The Democrats have one year to pack the courts. When the Republicans take the Senate next year, the rule becomes moot. When a Republican becomes President in 2016, we'll be treated to the resurection of the "traditional rights of the minority" editorials in the NYTimes.

Very short-sighted of the Dems, but I'm not sorry to see the rule abolished.; 11/21/13, 2:17 PM
Portia said...: Not only is Harry dingy, he's short sighted too.; 11/21/13, 2:21 PM
damikesc said...: Man, I hope the Dems don't lose the Senate. I mean, for their sake. And, man, what if a SCOTUS judge goes under during a Republican term? That'd be TRAGIC!!!

Reid just insured Congress gets nothing done for the rest of this term. They can gum up the works for nominations for a long time now.

The Democrats have one year to pack the courts. When the Republicans take the Senate next year, the rule becomes moot.

The press will try to play that, but keeping the same rules has a long history.

Since the filibuster is such a good idea, perhaps Repubs should put that into the House rules.

It seems like the only place they want it is where they're the minority. Funny how that works.

Republicans tried to give Clinton a line item veto. They have a history of pursuing goals even if it benefits others.

Shall I quote the Democrats long speeches about the need for the filibuster under Bush and the GOP Senate?

I do wonder what the quorum rules are for the Senate...; 11/21/13, 2:27 PM
damikesc said...: “My Republican colleagues claim that nominees are entitled to an up-down vote. That claim ignores history, including recent history.” (Harry Reid, 4/26/05 floor speech)

“Some in this chamber want to throw out 214 years of Senate history in the quest for absolute power … They think they’re wiser than our founding fathers. I doubt that that’s true.” (Harry Reid, 5/18/05 floor speech)

The nuclear option, “simply put, would be the end of the United States Senate.” (Harry Reid, The Good Fight: Hard Lessons from Searchlight to Washington,DC); 11/21/13, 2:32 PM
Paul said...: Well with all the scandals Obama has going, inept leadership as well as management, so it's no surprise the Democrats, desperate to hang on to power, now throw the filibuster rule out.

But come election time, 2014, what goes around...will come around.

Hope for change in 2014. Lots and Lots of Democrats up for re-election. Even some in Texas.; 11/21/13, 2:48 PM
Brando said...: Mark, it certainly goes both ways--the GOP that is defending the fillibuster now certainly didn't like it much when it was used against Bush's appointees. There are good reasons in principle to support or oppose the fillibuster, it just seems everyone discovers those reasons only when it benefits them. Not surprising, but they can really drop the whole pretense of caring about anything other than their own partisan needs.

As for the House, though, there are good reasons to want a fillibuster for the Senate and not the House--mainly because the House needs stricter rules due to their larger numbers (imaging trying to corral a bunch of prima donnas when there are so many more to deal with). And the House has to vote on its rules every two years anyway, as all the members are newly elected each term, while the Senate is considered a "continuing body" so its rules aren't regularly changed.; 11/21/13, 3:01 PM
Big Mike said...: So roughly 80% of us think that liberal activist judges will make people want moderately right of center to conservative judges.

But Democrats will continue to force liberal activist judges upon us, because they are good for us and we are too stupid to know that.

Just like Obamacare.; 11/21/13, 3:23 PM
Kelly said...: According to Politifact, Obama's nominations have had pretty smooth sailing compared to Bush's. There really was no reason for this.

My theory is Obama is humiliated. He is striking out at republicans as revenge for the embarrassment of the healthcare roll out, not that republicans did anything in particular, but I didn't say Obama is acting rationally. It's bizarre and a bit scary. What else does he plan on doing?; 11/21/13, 3:51 PM
rcocean said...: Where is 'Simon'? Where are all the sniveling, wise old grey-beard Rhino's that opposed the Republicans doing this in 2005-2006?

It would destroy the Senate they whined. Trent Lott almost burst into tears. So, after tons of hand-wringing and Republican Senate angst, McCain finally rode the rescue (aka stabbed the Republicans in the back) arguing that "we need to preserve the Filibuster for when we're in the minority".

Now 2013, the Democrats return the "favor" by pushing the nuclear button without a second thought. No fuss, no muss. The Republicans = the wimp party.; 11/21/13, 3:59 PM
rcocean said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/21/13, 4:03 PM
rcocean said...: This of course is just a replay of the SCOTUS nominations where McCain -and his Rhino friends - refused to oppose Ginsburg because "A president has a right to his choice for SCOTUS, elections have consequences".

The Dems then returned the favor by trying to filibuster both Republicans nominations and voting against them purely on ideology. 42 Dems voted against Alito.; 11/21/13, 4:05 PM
rcocean said...: And does anyone take MConnnell "threats" seriously?

'Oh, just you wait Mr. Reed, Just you wait'

10-1 the Republicans won't retaliate and if they gain control of the Senate and the POTUS will find some way to wimp out and restore filibusters.; 11/21/13, 4:14 PM
Lauderdale Vet said...: Why do we appoint them, instead of electing them?; 11/21/13, 4:21 PM
cubanbob said...: Since the filibuster is such a good idea, perhaps Repubs should put that into the House rules.

It seems like the only place they want it is where they're the minority. Funny how that works."

What a stupid comment. Since when did the House ratify treaties and appointments? A filibuster in the House would be a good idea when the constitution is amended to include the house for treaty ratifications and judicial and executive branch appointments.

As for what Reid did, the only sensible retort from the Republicans would be to go all nuclear and vow to impeach and remove any judge Reid gets through with this stunt when next the Republicans control both houses and this nuclear option Reid just pulled will give the Republican's the very mechanism to do just that. Congress doesn't need any real reason to impeach and remove anyone- it's whatever they deem high crimes and misdemeanors to mean and that very threat would curb this action by Reid and the Republicans would also be aware they too could face that option in the future as well keeping them in line when the congress and executive change hands.; 11/21/13, 4:32 PM
Hagar said...: In colonial days, judges were appointed by governors appointed by the British government and often given administrative powers and tasks not directly connected to the courts and judging, such that they really became part of the colony administrations.
It was deemed desirable to get away from this, but still keep them out of partisan elections.
Thus the system of federal judges being appointed by the President, but subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, and to keep a temporary Senate majority from giving approval to lifetime appointments for strongly partisan judges, the "filibuster" rules were agreed by both parties.; 11/21/13, 4:56 PM
BillP said...: I think the deal only affects the district courts and below - not USSC. Also, Senate views itself as a 'continuing body' since only 1/3 are up for election at any time - rules hold over to the next Congress (unlike the House who vote on rules at the start of the Congress).

As far as impact, not sure it will really be noticed since the really important questions go to the Supremes and confirmation of them isn't part of the nuclear option...; 11/21/13, 4:59 PM
Hagar said...: And this agreement is what Obama and Reid are now breaking, since neither cares very much what happens to the Democratic Party after they themselves leave office.; 11/21/13, 5:00 PM
The Godfather said...: The change in the rules regarding advice and consent of the Senate to nominees to District Courts and Courts of Appeal is not going to have ANY effect on public attitudes toward judges, because the public pays no attention to such nominations -- unless the change has a dramatic and immediate effect on the quality of federal judges, which seems very unlikely.

The real effect (if there is any) will be on the Senate as an institution. Because of its relatively small size and the fairly long terms of its members, the Senate has claimed to have a special culture, one that can overcome extreme partisanship and foster compromise. The filibuster was part of that Senate culture, because it gave the committed minority, of either party, or even a bipartisan minority, a significant negative power that was respected by the majority. Doing away with the filibuster through the naked exercise of partisan majoritarian power undermines that supposed special culture. During the recent flaps over the continuing resolution and the debt ceiling, the “wise men/women” pointed to the Senate as the place where a compromise might be possible, unlike the majoritarian House. We can expect naked hyper-partisanship to be acceptable in the Senate now, as it has been in the House. I say “naked” because the hyper-partisanship has been there for many years, but modestly clothed. Whether or not the country will be better or worse off for this change, I’m not prophet enough to say.; 11/21/13, 5:22 PM
rcocean said...: Althouse seems to be attracting a lot of long-winded bores these days.

Of course, it is a legal thread.; 11/21/13, 5:39 PM
Titus said...: Something like 25% of the population in the country even knows what the filibuster means....sad

and
tits.; 11/21/13, 5:41 PM
Jane said...: Ann --

You assume voters have a CLUE about the judicial system and what this vote means.

Man on the street -- maybe 1 in 1,000 understand what happened today.; 11/21/13, 5:48 PM
Unknown said...: Haha, "their own share," eh?; 11/21/13, 5:56 PM
Unknown said...: Haha, "their own share," eh?; 11/21/13, 5:56 PM
viator said...: I expect a policy that enhances partisan warfare and empowers what ever bare majority that is in power for however long will not help solve our problems. First lower court judges, then SCOTUS, then ambassadors, then cabinet officials, and on and on.

The GOP promised that if the Dems pushed the nuclear button they would add SCOTUS to the list of judges confirmed by a bare majority when they are in power. Maybe that is the Dems middle game here, to preempt the GOP.

The US Court of Appeals for DC, the court in question, will rule on Obamacare cases.; 11/21/13, 6:21 PM
david7134 said...: I think this goes deeper than certifying appointments. I think the Dems are so injured by Obamacare that they are having to act big to get the base back on track.; 11/21/13, 6:33 PM
A Conservative Teacher said...: This is fantastic! Now that the Democrats have established the the filibuster can be changed whenever the majority wants, once the GOP takes back the Senate (now or at some point in the future), they can just change the rules with a majority vote, and then repeal whatever Democratic legislation they want- starting with Obamacare. Thank you for removing the check of 60 votes that was established when our nation was first founded- now the party is really on!; 11/21/13, 6:56 PM
Gahrie said...: It is undemocratic

It is supposed to be undemocratic. It was quite carefully designed to be undemocratic.

and stupid.

I disagree. I would call it vital.; 11/21/13, 7:19 PM
Gahrie said...: In fact, I would make the Senate even more undemocratic, by repealing the 17th Amendment.(Passed the last time the Progressives were in charge); 11/21/13, 7:23 PM
rcocean said...: "In fact, I would make the Senate even more undemocratic, by repealing the 17th Amendment.(Passed the last time the Progressives were in charge)"

Do you and your buddies wear powdered wigs and guzzle port when you talk about repealing the 17th amendment or is this just your own daydream?; 11/21/13, 8:34 PM
rcocean said...: After repealing the 17th amendment we should pass another amendment requiring free unicorns and candy-canes for everyone!; 11/21/13, 8:37 PM
Unknown said...: There should be an option for: none of this matters very much. The impact of the appellate judiciary on the public consciousness is vanishingly small. The only thing that matters is the Supreme Court and that isn't changing.; 11/21/13, 9:13 PM
Unknown said...: There should be an option for: none of this matters very much. The impact of the appellate judiciary on the public consciousness is vanishingly small. The only thing that matters is the Supreme Court and that isn't changing.; 11/21/13, 9:15 PM
Gahrie said...: or is this just your own daydream?

No..in my personal daydream we repeal all three of the four Progressive Amendments that haven't been repealed yet....the 16th, 17th and 19th.; 11/21/13, 10:26 PM
RecChief said...: Mark said...
Since the filibuster is such a good idea, perhaps Repubs should put that into the House rules.

It seems like the only place they want it is where they're the minority. Funny how that works.

Actually, Senators Reid, Biden, Obama, and Clinton are all on records as being opposed on ending the 60 vote cloture rule. they are all on youtube.; 11/21/13, 10:27 PM
Gahrie said...: After repealing the 17th amendment we should pass another amendment requiring free unicorns and candy-canes for everyone!

Why not? After all Obamacare was deemed to have been passed.....; 11/21/13, 10:29 PM
RecChief said...: Kelly said...
According to Politifact, Obama's nominations have had pretty smooth sailing compared to Bush's. There really was no reason for this.

Actually, there are a couple reasons for this. 1. There are court challenges to Obamacare in the works that may have to pass through the DC circuit court. 2. The DC circuit court is a seed bed for SCOTUS nominees. 3. They know that they won't get much through legislatively in the next few years. 4. They need something to distract from Obamacare. 5. They can see the writing on the wall regarding 2014, and they now have no hope of getting to 60 senate seats.; 11/21/13, 10:32 PM
RecChief said...: actually I would support a repeal of the 26th amendment. A very liberal, rabid some might say, acquaintance of mine was frothing at the mouth about 18 yr olds being able to join the military. Her rationale? brains aren't fully formed until a person is in their mid 20s. So if they can't drink until 21, and their brains aren't fully formed, why can they vote?; 11/21/13, 10:40 PM
Gahrie said...: Talking of Amendments, there is an Amendment out there that could be ratified any day. There has actually been a Supreme Court case filed that argues that the Amendment has already been passed by enough states for ratification...the USSC refused to hear it though. It was one of the original 12 Amendments proposed by Congress. 10 of them became the Bill of Rights, one of them was passed in 1992 and the last is still active. It would mandate an immediate increase in the House of representatives to around 6,000 members.; 11/21/13, 11:03 PM
sdharms said...: Additional choice needed in your poll: "sick and tired of arcane rules that allow Dem despotism" and "rule needed requiring compliance with the Constitution"; 11/22/13, 5:59 AM
jr565 said...: "So with the filibuster nuked, does this mean that the Republicans can repeal Obamacare with a simple majority when they retake the Senate?
"
It only applies to judges currently. But, if this rule sn simply be changed, I don't know why any other rule can't be changed either. Think about how much easier it will be to nominate pro life justices if you just change the rules on how many votes you need.
Like almost everything the dems touch this will rebound on them even worse. A true double edged sword. But I suppose they should enjoy their victory for now.; 11/22/13, 8:39 AM
Hagar said...: These judgeship nominations at hand may be more important than the pundits yet realize.
As I understand it, the DC District Court is key for passing on the legalities of agency regulations.
I think the progressive Democrats recognize that they are going to be a legislative minority after 2016, and quite possibly after 2014, and the advancement of their programs are going to be dependent on the people they have in place in the Civil Service and the courts holding agency regulations to be constitutionally permissible.
Thus the haste to make sure that politically reliable - and young - judges are in place before next year's elections.; 11/22/13, 9:03 AM
Hagar said...: Make that a legislative "nullity."; 11/22/13, 9:04 AM
Joe said...: Althouse assumes the electorate gives a shit.

They don't.; 11/22/13, 9:18 AM
jr565 said...: The greatest example of liberal hypocrisy is in the editorial pages of the NYT (from Drudge):
Here they are in 2005 when the dems were in the minority:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/opinion/29tue1.html?_r=2&
And here's the NYT now:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/opinion/democracy-returns-to-the-senate.html
Liberals have no principles whatsoever. It's just about the power grab. Even funnier though is that back in 2005 when the were arguing for the filibuster and senate minority rights they had this to say:
"A decade ago, this page expressed support for tactics that would have gone even further than the "nuclear option" in eliminating the power of the filibuster. At the time, we had vivid memories of the difficulty that Senate Republicans had given much of Bill Clinton's early agenda. But we were still wrong. To see the filibuster fully, it's obviously a good idea to have to live on both sides of it. We hope acknowledging our own error may remind some wavering Republican senators that someday they, too, will be on the other side and in need of all the protections the Senate rules can provide."
So they've now changes positions three times and always when it supports the liberal agenda. And I'm sure if/when republicans take the senate it will be back to the point of their 2005 essay.; 11/22/13, 9:19 AM
Limited Blogger said...: One day, an historian may write:

"Obama was a strongman. He packed the courts, hounded the corporate media, legislated by decree and pretty much did away with any effective system of institutional checks or balances. But I’ll be perverse and argue that the biggest problem America faced during his rule was not that Obama was authoritarian but that he wasn’t authoritarian enough. It wasn’t too much control that was the problem but too little."

http://www.thenation.com/article/173212/legacy-hugo-chavez#; 11/22/13, 9:47 AM
jr565 said...: This is like the Iraq war again. The senators of note say one thing, with much stridency under one administration and then turn around and argue the exact opposite, with equal stridency.
From Obama, to Shumer to Reid (most especially Reid) to Hillary, they all argue agains the nuclear option and for the obstruction they now say is whatever their talking points say it is.

For example who said this?
"For 200 years, we’ve had the right to extended debate. It’s not some “procedural gimmick.”

It’s within the vision of the Founding Fathers of our country. They established a government so that no one person – and no single party – could have total control.

Some in this Chamber want to throw out 217 years of Senate history in the quest for absolute power."

Is that what was done by the dems? Who ae those some Harry Reid? You are that some.
If the nuclear option were invoked (as the repubs were threatening to do since the dems had unprecedently blocked Bush's appointees using that tactic) Reid said it would be a black chapter in the history of the senate.
And who now wrote that chapter? Harry Reid. The very guy just railed against the changing of the rules when he was in the minority.
Please defend this liberals.; 11/22/13, 9:54 AM
jr565 said...: Harry Reid:
Reid: What the Republicans came up with was a way to change our country forever. They made a decision if they didn’t get every judge they wanted, every judge they wanted, then they were going to make the Senate just like the House of Representatives. We would in effect have a unicameral legislature where a simple majority would determine whatever happens.

In the House of Representatives today Pelosi is the leader. Prior to that was Hastert. Whatever they wanted, Hastret or Pelosi, they get done. The rules over there allow that. The Senate was set up to be different. That was the genius, the vision, of our founding fathers – that this bicameral legislature, which was unique, had two different duties. One, was as Franklin said, to pour the coffee into the saucer and let it cool off. That‘s why you have the ability to filibuster and to terminate filibuster. They wanted to get rid of all that. That’s what the nuke option all about."

Just to be clear Harry, that's what you just DID! So what was the problem with the republicans threatening to do that? I know, different rules for you then for your enemies.
My guess, if the republicans are in danger of taking the senate the same dems who just changed the rules will try to change the rules back.; 11/22/13, 9:58 AM
jr565 said...: Harry are is even wrote in his own book on the nuclear option -
I just couldn’t believe that Bill Frist was going to do this. The storm had been gathering all year, and word from conservative columnists and in conservative circles was that Senator Frist of Tennessee, who was the Majority Leader, had decided to pursue a rules change that would kill the filibuster for judicial nominations. And once you opened that Pandora’s box, it was just a matter of time before a Senate leader who couldn’t get his way on something moved to eliminate the filibuster for regular business as well. And that, simply put, would be the end of the United States Senate.”

It would be THE END OF THEUNITED STATES SENATE. So Harry just opened the Pandora's box and ended the US Senate as we know it. Right Harry?; 11/22/13, 10:01 AM
jr565 said...: "Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: “The Senate is being asked to turn itself inside out, to ignore the precedent to ignore the way our system has work, the delicate balance that we have obtain that has kept this constitution system going, for immediate gratification of the present President.”

So, Hillary, and dems. Did what Harry Reid actually do ignore the way our system works for the immediate gratification of the present president?; 11/22/13, 10:24 AM
readering said...: This is all about game theory. Dems did this because they are convinced by the GOP's current tactics that GOP would do the same next time they got a GOP president and Senate majority, whether '17 or '21.; 11/22/13, 2:03 PM

Long term, what will be the effect on the American political mind?
	Aversion to right-wing activism will lead to a preference for more liberal judges.
	Aversion to left-wing activism will lead to a preference for more conservative judges.
	Aversion to judicial activism will lead to a preference for blander, more restrained judges.
	Enthusiasm for exciting judges will lead to a preference for better, more interesting judges.
	Enthusiasm for exciting liberal judges will lead to a preference for more of them.
	Enthusiasm for exciting conservative judges will lead to a preference for more of them.

pollcode.com free polls

Althouse

November 21, 2013

"Democrats, who filibustered their own share of Republican judicial nominees before they took control of the Senate..."

100 comments:

Amazon

Support this blog with PayPal

Blog Archive

Althouse

November 21, 2013

"Democrats, who filibustered their own share of Republican judicial nominees before they took control of the Senate..."

100 comments:

Amazon

Support this blog with PayPal

Subscribe To Althouse

Blog Archive