The Senate permits what is called a filibuster. It is essentially an extremely long speech by a senator aimed at derailing a piece of legislation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_(legislative_tactic)

When one party controls both houses of Congress and the Presidency, the filibuster provides the minority party an opportunity to slow down the consideration of Senate business. It serves as a mechanism to insure that the minority party’s voice is heard on Senate matters.

The Senate rules permit “cloture” of the filibuster only by a vote of 60 senators.

For the first time in American history, Democrats are using the filibuster to defeat majority supported judicial nominations. In essence they are denying the majority of senators the right to bring a judicial nominee to the floor for an up or down vote.

The result: Even though a voting majority of Senators may be prepared to vote for a nominee, the nomination cannot be confirmed as long as minority of Senators (41), are able to prevent the vote from occurring by refusing to vote on “cloture” of a filibuster.



This kind of permanent filibuster is designed to keep the Senate from ever voting on a nominee and it raises major constitutional concerns:

It essentially abolishes majority rule by imposing a super-majority requirement in situations (such as judicial nominations) where the Constitution does not.

and

It undermines the president's appointment power.


Question for Debate:

Does the Democrats tactic of using the filibuster to stop a judicial nomination from getting to the floor of the Senate violate the Constitution? If not, why not.

Should the Senate rules be changed to permit cloture with a majority of senate votes instead of a supermajority?

I believe the longest filibuster was a speech of 24 hours and 18 minutes by Strom Thurmond.

And was used frequently in the 50s and 60s by Republican senators to defeat Civil Rights movements...
('Longer than a Louisiana filibuster...')

That Democrats have now taken to using what has traditionally been a Republican tactic seems fair enough - if someone feels a subject is of importance enough to make these extremely long speeches, then perhaps it is right that a supermajority is required to pass judgement on that issue.

Does the Democrats tactic of using the filibuster to stop a judicial nomination from getting to the floor of the Senate violate the Constitution? If not, why not.

Well, firstly it was a Republican tactic originally that the Democrats adopted. Secondly, it is a legitimate congressional privilege, thirdly both parties do it and it seems to be fairly common practice. It isn't prohibited in the Constitution, so why not?

Should the Senate rules be changed to permit cloture with a majority of senate votes instead of a supermajority?

Why bother? This allows the minority to have a bit more influence than they would otherwise have. It doesn't allow the minority to block judicial nominations, merely delay them. Besides, this is one of the little quirks that makes American politics interesting. Any venerable institution is going to have silly little traditions and mannerisms that make it special. Democracy would be somewhat bland otherwise...

]



Filibustering has always been used in the Senate. It has usually been in response to legislative action and not judicial nominations. That having been said, the difference in this case is that the Democrats are the first ever to use it to stop a judicial nomination from even getting to the floor where it is clear from the cloture vote that a majority of the senators would support the nomination. So, both parties have not done it. It is the Democrats who have abused the filibuster to stop even an up or down vote.



A bit more influence than they would otherwise have?? They are blocking judicial nominations so that they never get to the floor at all! This tactic is more than giving the Democrats a bit more influence. It is imposing a supermajority requirement on judicial nominations that does not exist in the Constitution!

Does the Democrats tactic of using the filibuster to stop a judicial nomination from getting to the floor of the Senate violate the Constitution? If not, why not.

No, If there is not a specific rule against it in the Constitution then it does not violate the Constitution, it is simple as that. This tactic has been used for Decades, somewhere along the line, someone would have challenged the constitutionality of it, if it was reasonably possible.



There is also nothing in the Constitution preventing it's use is such a manner. Also, this is NOT a super-majority requirement to appoint a judge, technically. Technically it is a super-majority requirement to pass a measure to bring the issue to the floor for a vote. Practically, it blocks nominees, but technically it is a Senate rules vote and not a vote on the nominees themselves.

Should the Senate rules be changed to permit cloture with a majority of senate votes instead of a supermajority?

No. The Filibuster has been used for decades as a way to keep the Senate more non-partisan and moderate when it comes to doing the business of the people. It is one of the reasons that the Senate was always seen as the more civil body in Congress. I may disagree with the use of this tactic for lower judicial appointments, but they have the right to do so.

The Failure here is on the part of the Republicans. First, there are fence sitting members of both parties, the Republicans have failed to sway enough fence sitting Democrats to vote with them for cloture.

Second, the Republicans have failed to use public relations in this matter.

A simple strategy to fight a Filibuster is to call for cloture daily and require a recorded vote. Then, if the vote fails, go to the press each day with the names of those who refused to allow an up or down vote on a judicial appointee, alone with the current judicial back-log numbers, and a sob story or two of poor old ladies and the like who can't get justice because they have to wait years to have their cases heard and with the wait getting longer and longer they might be dead and buried before their case is heard.

Sway public Opinion and make it a bad public relations move to filibuster (after all, they are only seeking an up or down vote on the nominee, a vote that could still technically fail) and you will eventually see the few Democrats needed to win a cloture vote cave in, as there are several who are not guaranteed re-election because of the political make up of their states. The only defense the Democratic Senators would have against this tactic, would be if the nominee in question was a hard core right-wing zealot. So, nominate more moderate judges, and then apply the above tactic and the judges will see a vote on the floor IMHO.

The Republicans are failing to fight this. The tools are available, they just don't pick them up. You can't blame the Democrats for using the tools available to them to fight for their Ideology, you can blame the Republicans for failing to do the same.

First off, there are plenty of actions that are not specifically set out as unconstitutional in the Constitution that are later held to be unconstitutional. So, the first point is no argument at all.

Second, when senators block the nomination from even getting to the floor of the Senate they are in effect requiring a super majority vote for that nomination. It is as simple as that. No supermajority vote to get it to the floor -- no possible way to confirm the judicial nomination. In its effect, this tactic is clearly contrary to the Constitutional requirement that judicial nominees be confirmed with the advice and consent of the Senate.



I agree that the Republicans should also employ "public relations" tactics to force the nomination on to the floor of the Senate. But the point is that they shouldn't have to do this. No where in the Constitution does it say that a supermajority of senators are needed to block a nomination. Republicans should not have to resort to public relations tactics to require what is already constitutionally guaranteed.

I did not see the word "FULL" or "MAJORITY" in that constitutional requirment, only that the judical nominees need to be confirmed with the advice and consent of the senate. So, on a constitutional level, I feel this is still constitutional, it is afterall Senators who are filibustering. So, though it may be a minority in the senate that is blocking this vote, the tactic used is not unconsitutional IMHO.

And, though I am not a member of the legal profession, I still contend that Filibusting a Senate rule passage to allow a vote, is different the filibustering the vote on a nomination itself. Differences like this are the basis of legal decisions all the time. This would make it even harder to succeed in a constitutional argument to remove the power of the Filibuster IMHO.

I for one would fight against such an effort, because without the Filibuster, we will see the Senate become as much of a partisan body as the House (though it is getting there on it's own anyway ). There have been alot of hair-brained partisan billed passed by the majority in the house (regardless of the political side in the majority at the time) that were thankfully reigned in by the more reasonable Senate. One of the primary reasons the Senate has historically been more reasonable then the house is the Filibuster rule.



Politics is public relations. That is the name of the game. The Republicans were quite capable of using public relations to their advantage when they were in the minority. For some reason, they forgot how to do it when they gained Majority status.

The Filibuster, in it's own right is a practical check and balance on power IMHO. It is too important to get rid of, even if I do not personally agree with what it is being used against currently.

And if it's use leads to the nomination of more Moderate and Reasonable Judges then I am all for it. I would rather have this option in play for the long term (like when the time comes that the Democrats are the Majority power again), then out of play to serve a short term goal. It is as useful a tool to promote moderation in Democratic judicial nominees just as it is to do the same with Republican nominees.

Cough-cough-cough!!! Erk. Excuse me. The hypocriscy is so thick I'm choking on it. (Glug-glug-glug). There, that's better.

This is a phony question on a phony issue. The Democrats are using a tactic that protects the minority party from being ridden roughshod by an arrongant majority. For all the post-election blather about being "bipartisan," Bush's decision to resubmit the 20 nominations to the judiciary is an act of naked power. He's daring the Democrats not to challenge him a second time.

But when it comes to obstructing the choices of a President, the Republicans have elevated it to an art. A little history lesson is needed here.

On average, it took Clinton more than eight and a half months to confirm his initial appointees, up from five months for Ronald Reagan and less than three for John Kennedy. According to ranking Judiciary Committee Democrat Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt., it now takes more than 260 days for the Senate to confirm a federal judicial nominee, up from 183 days in 1996 and only 86 days in 1994. One judge waited more than three years for confirmation. It takes eight to 10 months for the average ambassadorial nomination to be approved. The administration is overflowing with unconfirmed "acting" officials. A 1998 survey found that "acting" officials hold about 20 percent of jobs reserved for presidential appointees.

In February, the president again nominated Bill Lann Lee as assistant attorney general for civil rights, a nomination the Senate has refused to consider for the past two years. Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, says he won't hold any hearing on Lee's nomination.

http://slate.msn.com/id/22067

Additionally,

Through filibusters or the more common "hold." Filibusters are rarely used, but in 1995 Clinton's nomination of Dr. Henry Foster for surgeon general died due to a Republican filibuster. More common are the mysterious Senate holds. This process, not spelled out in the Senate rules, allows any senator, for no given reason, to anonymously put on hold a nomination by simply asking his or her party leader for the delay. It was originally a sort of courtesy accorded to senators who wanted a vote delayed briefly due to scheduling problems or who needed time to gather more information. In recent years it has turned into a method for permanent obstruction. Holds can be put on for purposes that have nothing to do with a nominee as a way of forcing the administration to accommodate a senator's wishes on another matter. In recent years there have been 30 or more holds at a given time on nominees for judicial, ambassadorial, and other posts. A recent reform is requiring identification of the senator requesting the hold, but that has not always been forthcoming.

Eliminating the filibuster is essentially turning the Senate over to one-party rule. Thanks to the fact that President Bush has totally disregared the "advise" part and believes the only role of the Congress is to "consent" the last option for Democratic Senators is to filibuster the nominees they consider judicial extremists.
Democratic Minority Leader Harry Reid has called upon the White House to work with the Senate in sending up judicial nominees, but the president has shown zero interest in consulting or compromise.

Senate Democrats have used the filibuster judiciously -- only blocking the worst of the worst of President Bush’s nominees. 204 of the President’s judicial nominees were confirmed in his first term, only 10 were filibustered. The President has now appointed 23.2% of all active federal judges and 20% of all Circuit Court judges across the country. The vacancy rate on the federal courts is now the lowest it has been in at least 16 years.

Furthermore, the filibuster plays a critical role in preserving the essential fairness of the judicial branch. Unlike the other two branches, the federal courts are intended to be objective and nonpartisan, not subsidiaries of either political party. The filibuster rule prevents a President with a narrow majority in the Senate from appointing partisan Justices, or rank ideologues, to the Supreme Court. Revoking this rule would enable a GOP President with a 51-vote Senate majority to appoint Pat Robertson to the Supreme Court, and there would be nothing that the rest of the Senate, or the rest of the country, could do about it.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=17784

If Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist truly invokes the "nuclear option" to eliminate the Democrats ability to filibuster judicial nominees, he will be trading short-term political advantage for long-term damage to the Senate. I'm trying to verify this, but I believe when Hatch became head of the Senate Judicary Committee he eliminated the practice of secret "holds" where any Senator could indefinitely put a nominee into limbo by requesting a hold on the nomination.

The angry way evangelicals and the Republican hard right turned on Senator Arlen Specter was indicative of the way the party is trying to purge moderates from their ranks.

The senator was in a feisty mood after his victory: He called his election a “victory for moderate Republicans,” an increasingly endangered breed of Republican. “[W]e have a narrowly divided country, and that’s not a traditional mandate,” he told the Associated Press. “The number-one item on my agenda is to try to move the party to the center.”

Later, the senator appeared to issue a warning to the Bush administration not to send up judges for confirmation that would try to overturn Roe v. Wade—the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion: "When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade , I think that is unlikely."

Over the past four years, Democrats have had some success blocking the confirmation of a number of Bush’s conservative judicial picks, and Sen. Specter was picking up on that theme: “The president is well aware of what happened, when a bunch of his nominees were sent up, with the filibuster," Specter added. “And I would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning."

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/stopping_specter.php

The president and Frist (who wants to be president) are trying to stamp out the last vestiges of opposition to his nominees and appease the religious conservatives

Evangelist Pat Robertson indicated Tuesday that if Senate majority leader Bill Frist expects to receive the backing of religious conservatives for a possible 2008 presidential bid, he had better get President Bush's judicial nominees confirmed by the Senate--or at least voted on. "It is the ultimate test," Robertson said at the National Press Club. "He cannot be a leader and allow Democrats to do what they did in the last session."

http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?ID=15172&sd=02/17/05

Robertson should spend more time saving souls and less time pressuring ambitious politicians to suck up to the Religious Right's agenda. I am hopeful that the Democrats will continue to oppose the president's most extreme nominees and that all the anger and bluster can be set aside so that the Senate may return to its original Constitutional purpose to "advise and consent."

Not "rubber-stamp."

I believe that using a filibuster to block nominations from coming to a vote is unConstitutional.

The Constitution clearly says that judges and other appointees require the Senate's advice and consent. The filibuster means that the Senate is deprived of its ability to "advise and consent", since no up or down vote ever occurs.

The Republicans have used similar tactics in the past, and they were also wrong.

A minority of Senators (or a Committee chairman) should not be able to block the Senate's ability to provide its advice and consent.

Edit to add: Nighttimer, your numbers seem to indicate to me that Washington is getting more partisan and little else. Clinton worked (for the most part) with an opposition Senate. The fact that Bush is working with his Party's Senate should automatically decrease the time frames involved.

Why is a filibuster not seen as part of the Advise and Consent Process? It is obvious that those who filibuster do not consent, and this is their only tool available to express that with.

filibuster is not preventing the Senate from Advising and Consenting, filibuster is part of the Advising and Consenting Process IMHO. Just as it is a part of the process for any vote, legislation or nomination. To get something though the senate, you have to be able to get it past the Filibuster.

That is part of the rules of the Senate. Without changing the Senate rules, you have to play by them. I don't think you can argue successfully against filibustering nominations, without that ending up eliminating the Filibuster all together. The Filibuster has a history of injecting reason into nominations and legislation. I sincerely hope that this tool is not taken away, because as I said before, the result will be the elimination of the only real tool of balance available to the minority party.

Since I personally think both parties are off the mark, in differing ways, I do not want to see either EVER have unchecked power in government. Eliminating the Filibuster effectively gives the majority party unchecked power, and in this case, since the majority party holds the majority in both houses as well as the white house the unchecked power would be complete.

The Filibuster has been used for years to move legislation and even nominations to more moderate levels by forcing compromise. It is the failure to even consider compromise, as well as their failure to properly fight for the nominations using public opinion, that lead to this situation.

For that matter, it is the Death of Compromise on both sides that has created most of the problems we face today in America.

The Senate was always meant to be the more sober and deliberate body than the House. That's one reason why it's a LOT harder to become a Senator than a Representative.

I don't think there's as much "advise and consent" going on in the Senate now as there is "take it or leave it." The simple fact is there are more Republicans in the Senate than Democrats and the majority enjoys the power to set the agenda and decide (usually along voting lines) what gets enacted into law and what does not.

But majority rule was never meant to mean that the minority had no rights at all. The filibuster is a way to maintain a semblance of debate, discussion and invite the White House to do some "advising" and not just expect "consent" from Senate Democrats.

Let me ask you something Amlord: do you consider Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Clinton's two Supreme Court nominees to be judicial extremists or moderates? To my mind, if the country is more moderate than it is either Far Left or Far Right, then we should be looking for more judges without an obvious ideological bent and will interpret the law without a partisan political bias.

I don't think that's the kind of judge Pat Robertson wants or George Bush is nominating. That should be disturbing to anyone who wants the courts not to become just another bastion of political priorities and partisanship trumping serving the needs of law and justice.

.

The Democrats are not just protecting themselves from the arrogant majority, they are essentially forcing a supermajority in order to approve a judicial nomination. The filibuster was not intended to redistribute the voting requirements on this issue. It was intended to give voice to the concerns of the MINORITY party. Once the minority party (the democrats) have had their say-- the Constitution expects that the issue will be taken to a vote.



Sorry. That is the way that our representative republic works. We are founded in democratic principles set forth in our Constitution. The Democrats are the minority party-- so be it. Judicial nominees have the right to have their nominations voted upon by the Senate. The President under our Constitution has the right to have his nominees voted on. The American people have a right to have judicial nominees considered by the Senate and voted on. It is both unconstitutional and undemocratic to obstruct the entire process to the point that the nominations cannot be given even an up or down vote.

None of this would even be an issue if judges acted like judges and interpreted the law instead of making policy. It is no wonder that the Democrats are fighting this to the death because they know that the only place left where they wield any power is with the activist judiciary. God forbid one of these important nominations is squandered on a judge who understands his role as interpreter of the Constitution and not policy maker.





No. Actually, the Senate could let Robertson's nomination actually come to the floor for a vote and (gasp) actually make the case against him based on his judicial philosophy. I know it sounds radical-- but yes, they could do it. They could show him to be the "rank idealogue" that you say he is and persuade others not to vote for him. They did it with Bork didn't they? Well, it can be done.



Frist has warned that if the next judicial nominee is filibustered he will seek to have the cloture rule changed. Apparently he has the 51 votes necessary to do it. And I believe that he will. More power to him.




No actually-- they have another tool-- their vote, oh and their powers of persuasion. If they believe that a nominee is an idealogue it is their duty to make the case against him and let the chips fall where they may. But they are not doing that. They are simply obstructing a vote altogether.

Personally, I am fearful of changing the cloture rule because I know that the day will come when the Dems will have the power to present a judicial nominee and I will want the Repubs to do everything in their power to stop such a nominee. But I know that I cannot let my viewpoint be dictated by tactics I would want to see used to further my political preferences. Unconstitutional and undemocratic action cannot be tolerated, even if it works against my own political views.



I have no problem with a filibuster that allows for the minority party's view to get out. I do have a problem with it stopping a vote in its tracks--particularly where majority support exists for the nomination.




I know this question if for Amlord, but let me jump in. I think Breyer and Ginsburg are very liberal. You are kidding yourself if you think they are moderate.

It is also the responsibility of a U.S. Senator to challenge and confront judicial nominees that are clearly unqualified to sit on the federal bench. When a president tries to bum-rush the advise and consent process with arrogance and impunity, there needs to be a process and a mechanism in place to stop this mad dash. Nowhere does it say in the Constitution that EVERY nominee the President makes must be approved. Your indignation directed the Democrats now I trust was in evidence when it was the Republicans such as Orrin Hatch and Jesse Helms blocking President Clinton's nominees then.

However, I have a sneaking feeling that your "outrage" is of a more recent vintage, Haleyanne.



If Frist's ambition exceeds his common sense he will invoke "the nuclear option" but what it will cost him is a Senate that grinds to a halt as Democrats employ every tactic in the book to delay, drag out and otherwise gum up the works. Additionally, the late Jack Newfield wrote in The Nation last year:

One such option involves having whichever GOP senator is presiding over the Senate at the time rule a filibuster against a nominee out of order and then rule that his position needs only fifty-one votes to be sustained, not the sixty needed to end debate. Some scholars, however, believe the "nuclear option" is unconstitutional and would end up in the courts. Democrats say it will shut down the Senate if used.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040126&s=newfield



Let me be sure that I understand you here. Are you saying that when the day comes that the Democrats regain power in the Senate and White House and "present a judicial nominee" that you would want the Republicans to stop the nominee. Does that mean ANY nominee? No matter how qualified a jurist they might be or how superb a job they had done previously on a lower court? My dear God, are we so Balkanized into our petty political philosophies that we're reduced to playing this game of "Republicans--good, Democrats--bad?"

By virtue of such a hardened political view Haleyanne, Dwight Eisenhower would never been allowed to put a William Brennan on the bench (who became a solid liberal Justice) and John Kennedy would never had placed Byron White (who became a reliable conservative) on the High Court.

This is where we part company I'm afraid. I am not afraid of President Bush nominating conservatives to the federal judiciary. But I am very much afraid of Bush nominating right-wing ideologues who are chomping at the bit for a chance for a little "judicial activism" swinging from the Right side of the equation. I'm disappointed that it appears more important for you that good conservatives instead of good judges are placed on the federal bench.



Breyer and Ginsburg are far more centrist than Scalia or Thomas whom are solidly conservative. Indeed, the "activists" on the Supreme Court are the conservatives Justices such as Scalia and Thomas (and which one will Bush tab for Chief Justice when Rehnquist finally packs it in?) and federal appeals court judges who are ruled more by political ideology than adherence to stare decisis.

Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) spoke with Newfield about the imbalance of power currently present on the Supreme Court.

President Clinton's two Supreme Court appointments--Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer--have not been effective counterweights to the ideological zeal of Scalia and Thomas. They have not been visionary liberals in the tradition of William Brennan, William Douglas, Thurgood Marshall or Louis Brandeis. They have been less bold and lucid than John Paul Stevens, a Gerald Ford nominee. As Schumer put it to me in an interview, "I wouldn't object to one Scalia on the Court, if there was also one Brennan. It's about balance. All the extremists are on the right now."

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021007&c=4&s=newfield

Edward Lazarus, a former federal prosecutor and a former law clerk for Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in his book, Closed Chambers that the primary requirements for elevation to the Supreme Court should be openmindedness and intellectual integrity.

"You are never going to have nine justices up there, at any given time, who are all saints. It is a human institution. It is going to have human flaws. Being a judge is a terribly difficult profession. The only way we can improve the court is to have a nomination and confirmation system where those criteria become the main ones and politics is put, somewhat, to the side."

The present system of nominating judges is broken and badly neets fixing. I doubt however if the scorched earth tactic of Frist's "nuclear option" is going to bring that healing process along. As a physician he should remember the first rule for a doctor is "to do no harm." I'd be more impressed if Frist called Harry Reid over to his office and said, "Let's come up with a way to make this work---for both sides."

We need a few more statesmen and a lot fewer partisans.

The filibuster is one of my pet peeves. It has been around almost as long as the Senate itself, has been used about equally by both parties, usually without violating the Constitution, but sometimes, directly or indirectly, increasing the voting threshholds prescribed in the Constitution.

The issue of filibustering nominations is not as clearly unconstitutional as filibustering some other issues, because the Constitution's "advise and consent" does not specifically mention a simple majority. The Constitution does, however, speak of majority votes being the default means of legislating, so that some may extrapolate this to apply to the "advise and consent" clause.

I, for one, am not so sure that a vote actually has to be taken in order for Congress to "consent" to a nomination, as I will explain...



Maybe not, if there were a means of allowing "silent consent" to Presidential nominations. "Silent consent" is a well-established Constitutional issue upon which such concepts as Judicial Review are based. The idea is that if the group in question does not actively vote against an policy, then after a period of time, their silence is interpreted as their consent.

A variation of silent consent is even present in the Constitution, which stipulates that bills passed by Congress can become law without the President's signature if the President leaves the bill on his desk too long without signing it or vetoing it.

Because the Constitution says that the Senate should "advise and consent" to Presidential appointments, and the framers allowed for a form of silent consent directly in the Constitution, it could be extrapolated that nominations that are not directly voted upon by the Senate should be assumed to be consented to after the same amount of time passes as encoded for a bill becoming law without the President's signature.

But then, what the heck do I know.

While this has been an interesting discussion, the answer to this question is clear. Filibustering of judicial nominations is not protected by the Constitution.

Democrats can Filibuster if they choose, but the Republicans can also choose to allow a 51-vote closure. Both sides equally "Constitutional".

As to the arguments that the judical filibuster protects us from extreme ideologies taking seat on our courts: this is absurd. The Republic has survived over 200 years without such tactics and its use now is nothing more than desperate politics.

My opinion on this is: Let them vote.

Slightly OT: From what I've read recently, Frist will go forward with the "nuclear option". From a purely political viewpoint, this is exciting. This will raise the stakes for both parties. Will the Democrats actually "shut down" the government as they have threatened? I don't think so. I don't think they have the backbone.

I'm back! I've been a way for a couple of months, and I've decided to add my 'two cents'.

Article 1, Section 4:

Article 2, Section 2:



Although we might be loosing some potential good judges because of the filibuster, I have to agree with overlandsailor on this. The filibuster rule help to keep a one party rule from being established. Also, it does cool down legislation from the very political house.

In fact, the Republic has survived for over 200 years with such tactics and its use now is nothing more than business as usual. It is the attempt to stifle filibuster that is an act of desperation (or, at least, desperate political pandering). From its inception, debate had never been restricted in the Senate. In 1841, when the Democratic minority hoped to block a bank bill, Henry Clay tried to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate and was rebuked for attempting to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate. In 1917, after 111 years, the first act of cloture was enacted in response to a filibuster by those who opposed U.S. intervention in World War I. In 1949, the cloture rule was modified to make cloture more difficult to invoke, mandating that the number needed to stop debate would be not two-thirds of those present and voting, but two-thirds of all Senators. In 1975, the majority was reduced to three-fifths.

The record for the longest individual filibuster, by the way, goes to Strom Thurmond, who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Sen. Byrd recently gave quite a good speech on the filibuster and cited several instances of its past use in defending the rights of minority opinion against injustice:
Filibuster (and other tactics) have long been used in relation to judicial appointments, as well. In 1968, Lyndon Johnson nominated Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Republicans, hoping they would have the White House soon and that a Republican president could name Earl Warren's successor, filibustered Fortas' appointment. An effort to cut off debate and proceed to a vote on the nomination failed to receive a majority - and Johnson withdrew the nomination.

In the later years of the Clinton presidency, the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was controlled by Republicans, did not hold hearings for as many as sixty of his nominees. It has been argued that this refusal to even consider President Clinton's nominees was just as effective in blocking them as a filibuster.

The Constitution does not directly address filibuster, but it does enable Congress to enact its own rules. It has done so - and filibuster is allowed by those rules unless there is a three-fifths vote for cloture. Technically, then, filibuster is within the Senate's Constitutional rights. Overruling it without a vote of cloture according to Senate rules is not.

We are experiencing nothing these days if not another "invasion of judicial power such as has never before been attempted in this country". What do you think all this "judicial activism" rhetoric is about? We may need the right of filibuster now more than ever. And - should the tables turn - the Republican Party will be glad they have that right.

Indeed, in the past, Republicans have embraced filibuster, both in terms of legislature and advice and consent. "But," as Stephen Colbert recently explained on The Daily Show, "that was before they had a majority. So... there's that."

Perhaps the question is not whether the filibuster is Constitutional - that can be argued either way. As some of you have said, the Constitution does not directly address the filibuster and does allow both houses of the legislative branch to make its down rules. However, I believe the more pertinent issue to get America off the debate over whether the filibuster can be used, and switch it to whether the Republicans are abusing power in Congress by threatening to remove it. This White House has an obsession with winning, and making their opponents out to look like idiots, this time, I believe, such an attempt will backfire (see all the politically devisive moves made by any President in their second term).

For those of who you still believe that Republicans have never filibustered a judicial nominee, perhaps you would like to take a look at the roll call for the Senate floor vote on Marsha Berzon, nominated for U.S. Circuit Judge by then President Bill Clinton. All Republicans, 13 Senators carried out a filibuster and forced the President to leave the bench empty. I am amazed and scared that the media has played fiddle to Frist's claims that there has never been a practice of filibustering judicial nominees. In fact, a quote from just after the election sums up the hypocrasy:



Now that we have got the debate over whether the filibuster has been used by the Republicans to strike down what would have been approved appointments to the federal courts, let's take a look at some of the sick political manuevering made by the Senate Majority Leader.

On April 24, Frist will air into churches a broadcast aimed at Democrats calling them "against people of faith" because they want to filibuster seven of these again submitted nominees. I could begin to ramble on how churches in this country have began to tread the lines of their 501(e)© tax exempt status, but I won't. However, what we do have here is an attempt by the Republican Party to, once again, shift the debate away from what it actually is, and wrap itself around some glorious cause - this time, it's defending Christianity. As if it wasn't already obvious that Frist has never apparently read the Constitution or the amendments to it, does this not signal that these nominees are being picked for their religious inklings? Otherwise, why would Frist feel the need to defend them in this way, and not hold a telecast calling Democrats "against law-upholding judicial nominees". It is because even the National Bar has said that these judges are poor choices for the federal bench, and we can't possibly allow that to get out into the media.

Frist will think he is winning here. But, as the polls have shown, Americans support keeping the filibuster. A third of Republicans believe that the Democrats should position themselves to "make sure the Republicans' agenda does not go to far". 45% of Americans believe that Republicans are acting irresponsibly as the Majority Party in terms of relations with the Democrats, while only 43% believe they are acting responsibly. I say, let the Republican Party change the rules. Let them force these nominees through and let the Democrats carry a big stick and hold press conferences across the country talking about how this Republican congress has turned America into a one-party state (quick rant). Now, seriously, I believe the Republicans will lose on this issue.

These that is the real question we should be debating here: (1) Have the Republicans used the Senate filibuster to strike down Democratic nominees to the bench? The answer, as noted, is yes; (2) Should Senate Republicans be emflaming an already polarized electorate in an attempt to get support for nominees that the American Legal Association says are "poor choices"? Clearly, the answer is no.

The Republicans are most certainly not abusing power by threatening to remove the judicial filibuster. In fact, I am starting to think they are nuts if they don't exercise the nuclear option. What is the harm to them of exercising it? The only harm is that in 4 years, IF we have a democratic president AND a democratic majority in the Senate, the Republicans will wish they had the filibuster. The more I think about it, the more I am convinced the Republicans ought to let loose and get rid of the judicial filibuster. I am tired of the liberals having control of the Court. And they do right now because Kennedy and O'Connor cannot be relied upon to vote conservatively on any number ofl issues. So what harm is it to Republicans to take the only opportunity they have RIGHT NOW to get back control of the judiciary. They don't have control now. If the Republicans keep the presidency and the Senate in 2008, we are looking at a period of almost 8 years where there will surely be a number of vacancies on the Court that could be filled with Conservative justices. Moreover, the bulk of the important cases are decided by the appellate courts anyway-- and surely there will be plenty of vacancies there. The stakes are too high for them to be cautious now.

Oh really?

If this were true, one wonders just how Judge Berzon managed to sit on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. There was no "filibuster", there was a cloture vote, the one you cited followed by floor vote where she was confirmed. Your allegation is a complete fabrication. You can't just come here and make things up. For example.....



Once again, your first claim is completely bogus, and your second claim of a "poor choice" rating (your quotes, don't know what the hell that even means) is also wrong.

From the ABA, Janice Rogers Brown has received a Qualified/Not Qualified rating. You might check this guy's take on what that really means.

Of course, Judge Brown's real problem is that she's a conservative black woman. From the Congressional Black Caucus, we get the following condemnation of her....



Bi-partisan? Yeah, that's a code phrase for "agree with us"....

I agree with you about the nuclear option and sincerely hope the Republicans(Frist) make that choice.

This will give the American people a chance to see true Republicans at their best. This will give the American people a chance to see the judges that they choose to ignore the law and give the judgements that the Republicans so desire. The Republicans don't give a darn whether the judgements handed down are based on law, just as long as it pleases their egos.

Take Delay and his ranting about the conservative and liberal judges alike handing down the same decision concerning Terri. It didn't matter that they were all enforcing the laws, it just didn't fit into Delays and the Republicans plans.

Yes I hope, the Republicans take the Nuclear option, and let the people see the Republicans for what they are!!!!!!!!!

hayleyanne
Gender: Female
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Republican


Gee, haleyanne, maybe that's because they are voting based on the Constitution, or at least on reasonably argued law, rather than on base political ideology?


I wasn't aware that the Judiciary was under the "control" of either party. I thought they were supposed to make independent rulings, and not just decide the way their "political masters" in the House and Senate wanted them to.


You may just want to reconsider your label, as noted above, under the heading "politics". Because if this is what you think it means to be independent, I'd hate to see what you think a hard-line conservative is.

Haleyanne, if the the Republicans "go nuclear" on this, I can almost guarantee you that you won't won't be holding onto the Presidency or Senate in 2008, much less adding to the number of seats. Same goes for the House in 2006.

Yes, indeed, let the Republicans do away with the filibuster. As Nighttimer implied, it would do so much more harm for the Republicans overall than any short term advantage it could possibly give them now.

They may indeed be able to pack the courts with conservative activists who would then revisit and overturn any number of decisions based on the conservative's notion of what is right and moral, even if it isn't based in actual law. That may get them the Vote of Bob Jones University, and the 700 Club. It won't get them much else.

Look again at the polls on the Terri Schiavo case for instance. A full 80% of the population thought that the politicians should have kept their nose out of it. Do you really think that voters are going to like Tom Delay any better if the court votes the way he wants every time he holds a press conference?

And, once revealed, it would set back all Republican candidates at the voting booth. Badly. You think it was bad in the 60's 70's and 80's, being a mostly minority party? Wait until you can't get a Republican elected dog catcher for 40 years. So, yes. Please. Go ahead and use the "nuclear option".

You know, I have done nothing on this board but advocate for neutral judicial decision making. I have put out so many possibilities: looking at constitutional interpretation itself; suggesting a supermajority requirement etc. All of this falls on deaf ears. If people do not acknowledge that there is a problem with an activist judiciary, there can be no remedying it. If it can't be remedied, the only option is to play politics. It is awful, but if politics can't be rooted out of the judiciary then I will support whatever will get judges on the bench that support my views. It is sad but true.

Also, I don't believe that the nuclear option will have political repercussions for the republican party. I don't believe those polls, I think they were slanted. I think most people are tired of judicial activism. Even if it does have political repercussions, ultimately who cares? The judges trump any law they choose to anyway.

Maybe I am just angry right now because I have been butting heads alot with people in other posts on the topic of judicial activism. But, at this point, I am tired of trying to be reasonable about it and correct the problem at its source. No correction can be made if people deny there is a problem. Perhaps the only realistic solution is to resolve to play politics and use the advantage we have now-- or it might be lost forever.

Ah, you are right. What I meant to say was that there was an *attempted* filibuster. Eight of the original thirteen Senators who wanted to carry it out are still in the Senate (Allard (CO), Brownback (KS), Bunning (KY), Craig (ID), DeWine (OH), Enzi (WY), Inhofe (OK) and Shelby (AL)). However, their attempt failed because of the cloture motion that passed. However, while you are accusing me of lying, I'll bring up this fact as well:

During Bill Clinton's presidency, the Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee defeated the following nominees, who were rated unanimously "well-qualified" by the ABA: H. Alston Johnson (5th Circuit), James Duffy (9th Circuit), Kathleen McCree-Lewis (6th Circuit), Enrique Moreno (5th Circuit), James Lyons (10th Circuit), Robert Cindrich (3rd Circuit), Stephen Orlofsky (3rd Circuit), Andre Davis (4th Circuit), James Beaty (4th Circuit), and J. Rich Leonard (4th Circuit).

Allen Snyder (D.C. Circuit) was not allowed a vote in the Republican committee after his hearing, who had also received the same rating.

The following Clinton nominees who were rated the same as the seven Bush nominations were blocked by the Republican committees: Helene White (6th Circuit), Jorge Rangel (5th Circuit), Robert Raymer (3rd Circuit), Barry Goode (9th Circuit), Christine Arguello (10th Circuit), Elizabeth Gibson (4th Circuit), Elana Kagan (D.C. Circuit), James Wynn (4th Circuit), Bonnie Campbell (8th Circuit), Kent Markus (6th Circuit), and Roger Gregory (4th Circuit).

The following should also be known: Almost 60 of Clinton's nominees were defeated through the Senate's "anonymous hold" rule, which allows any Senator of the ruling party to hold up a bill without releasing his name.

Now, I admit to my misstep in speaking, but here is one reality. Bill Frist voted with Senator Smith of New Hampshire on March 9, 2000 to filibuster Clinton nominee Richard Paez. Nor this or the one I spoke of above succedded because the nominees were moderate enough for Democrats to gain 60 votes on cloture motion. However, it is still the point that, if Bill Frist had had his way, both those nominees would have been filibustered.

Perhaps you should've ate a donut instead of challenging me.

I say it is constitutional per Article I Section V of the Constitution.


Constitution

I take a step back...

Are you saying that you are breaking with Bill Frist and Tom DeLay, the two Republicans clamoring that the Judiciary needs to be independent-minded and outside of this ficticious "liberal bias"? Because it seems that you are supporting Conservatives on the federal bench, which would go against the statements of those two.

Full stop. Sorry for the double post.

Lastly, here is an interesting quote from Senator Smith (R-NH) when he attempted to filibuster:

Indeed.... Perhaps it might be more useful for you the next time you participate in a thread here to actually read the subject of the thread instead of making dietary suggestions to others. The title of this thread is "Filibustering Judicial nominations". That did not occur in any of the cases you cited in your little laundry list. Did the Republicans deny some of Clinton's nominations? Sure they did, that's part of the "Advise and consent" duties of the US Senate. But, they didn't filibuster any of them.

I'm going to use some info from the Wikipedia article referenced in the initial question. Wikipedia can be edited by the public, but I will proceed under the assumption that the information there is valid.

Does the Democrats tactic of using the filibuster to stop a judicial nomination from getting to the floor of the Senate violate the Constitution? If not, why not.

Should the Senate rules be changed to permit cloture with a majority of senate votes instead of a supermajority?

In another thread on the validity of supermajorities, I've discussed why I believe a simple majority is sufficient to indicate Constitutional consent, and why attempts to raise the threshhold from 1/2 to 3/5 is an unconstitutional transfer of power from the majority viewpoint to the minority viewpoint. Supermajorities are necessary in some circumstances, but I believe they need to be spelled out in the Constitution.

However, for the sake of argument, suppose that a 3/5 cloture vote is constitutional-- if so it because the Senate has authority to set its own rules, so if there's nothing wrong with a 3/5 cloture vote, then by the same authority, there's nothing wrong with a simple majority cloture vote.

According to the Wikipedia article, the filibuster originated in both houses of Congress from the lack of any rule that would close debate. The House got fed up with filibusters, and set up a simple means of closing debate, while the Senate continued to allow filibusters whithout any form of cloture until 1917. How could the Senate have gotten anything done when there was no way at all to close debate? There was no procedural filibuster-- the filibustering Senators had to actually stand up in front of the Senate and speak for as long as they could until they could speak no more, so there was an inherent limit to the length of time a filibuster could last.

The only way a traditional filibuster ever blocked legislation was if the Senate agreed to concede or table the issue and move on to other business. Otherwise, within a few days, traditional filibusterers would lose their energy and a vote would be taken anyway. I really don't have a problem with a traditional filibuster because it can't last forever, and at some point a vote can be taken, even without cloture, if the rest of the Senate is willing to wait while the protesting Senators have their say.

Since being introduced in 1917, the rules for cloture have been anything but constant. At different times in its history, the Senate cloture could be 2/3 of the Senators present, 2/3 of a quorum, 2/3 of the entire Senate, and finally the Democrats lowered it in 1975 from 2/3 to 3/5. Then the procedural option was added in the late 1980's and early 1990's. So filibuster rules have been changing about once a decade, and we're overdue for more. Lowering cloture again from 3/5 to 4/7 or 1/2 would be relatively routine, certainly not worthy of the alarmist "nuclear option" moniker.

The procedural filibuster introduced in the late 1980's involves doing away with the speaking portion of the filibuster, and only counting cloture votes. But there is a monumental difference between a procedural filibuster and a traditional filibuster-- a procedural filibuster is assumed to last indefinitely, as apposed to the physical limitations of the Senators engaging in it. The invention of the procedural filibuster as a means of obstructionism is generally credited to the Republicans, whose 1991-1992 session tried more filibusters in one year than were attempted during the entire 19th century.

As someone who doesn't really care whether the Republicans or Democrats take blame or bragging rights, I think both parties are wrong to use the procedural filibuster to indefinitely require a supermajority on issues the Constitution indicates a simple majority to be sufficient. Instead, I would like to see the Senate go back to a pre-1917 traditional filibuster that had no cloture vote at all-- there is an inherent limitation to the length of a traditional filibuster after which time a vote can happen.

I think there could be a reasonable compromise between the traditional filibuster and the procedural filibuster. The longest traditional filibuster by one person was for about 24 hours. As a compromise rule, Senators who sign on to a procedural filibuster would be allowed to require 3/5 cloture for a number of days equal to the number of Senators who are filibustering. Afterwards, cloture drops from 3/5 to 1/2. For example, if 30 Senators want to filibuster something, then if the other 70 cannot muster a supermajority within 30 days, then they can wait 30 days and close debate with a simple majority. That way, the procedural filibuster would work more like a traditional filibuster with its inherent limitations.

Still, I think the pre-1917 no-cloture filibuster was better-- make 'em make fools of themselves and bring the Senate to a halt for a few days if they want to protest. Within a few days, the Senate gets on with a vote. Frist could force a traditional filibuster if he wanted to-- but doing so would leave the insidious procedural filibuster intact. The teeth needs to be taken out of the procedural filibuster, either by reverting permanently to a traditional filibuster, lowering cloture to a simple majority, or by using some kind of compromise that does not allow the supermajority requirement to go on indefinitely.

No, I am not breaking with it. I hope Frist is able to get in judicial nominees who act like judges and not legislators. Honestly, I am skeptical of the whole process because once the judges are on the bench there is no real way to control what they do, i.e. we can't stop them from legislating.

But if we have to live with this system, and some "conservatives" slip in-- I am a whole lot less concerned. First, because conservative judges are not activist as much as liberal judges. And second, even if they are, I agree with what they do.

I agree, the traditional filibuster is better. This allows the objections of the minority to be heard and (perhaps) the objection may shift a few votes to the side of the majority. I believe this was the intent of the traditional filibuster -- though, I'm sure many ended up standing there making fools of themselves. Also, if Senate business stopped completely due to filibustering, it would be used more judiciously, especially now that the media plays such a powerful role in politics.

I'm not going to start my first entry into debate with an argument. However, it is telling that you are willing to dismiss the Republican attempts to filibuster as fufilling their duties for "advise and consent" because they didn't have the votes to uphold it but the Democratic attempts to filibuster are "unconstitutional" because they do have the votes to uphold it? Wouldn't that suggest to any reasonable person that if the nominee is moderate - as Clinton's were - then they might be able to gain bipartisan support like the other 200 nominees Bush has placed on the bench?

And to address your other question, I did indeed participate in the thread. The first question asked whether or not I believed that Democrats were violating the Constitution by filibustering judges: I said that the Constitution gives the Senate power to make its own rules within itself, and the filibuster is a Senate rule. I continued to point out that that question is leading to begin with, because it fails to note that Republicans have indeed tried to filibuster judicial nominees in the past. I believe, through my entire post, I made it clear that I did not want want the filibuster rule changed. I have read the forum rules and there is nothing in that notice that says I cannot bring additional dimensions to debate.

Once again, I will ask you to read the quote from Senator Smith (R-NH) when he attempted to filibuster Richard Paez:
But don't pontificate on the floor of the Senate and tell me that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States of America by blocking a judge or filibustering a judge that I don't think deserves to be on the circuit court because I am going to continue to do it at every opportunity I believe a judge should not be on that court. That is my responsibility. That is my advise and consent role, and I intend to exercise it. I don't appreciate being told that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States. I swore to uphold that Constitution, and I am doing it now by standing up and saying what I am saying." (March 7, 2000)


Full stop. Go eat your donut now.



Do I need a better example of Republican hypocrisy? It's okay if the judges legislate from the bench as long as they are legislating in a Conservative way? That is truly sad.



I disagree with you, partly because I believe - whether Republicans or Democrats are in the minority - there are times when one party gets to arrogant and decides to shove off compromise (of which our nation is built on). That is where the filibuster comes in. However, if merely a simple majority needs to take place, then all the majority party has to do is solidfy its caucus to uphold their power. In short, the filibuster is what should be a rarely used tool, but still an important one - especially in today's world of bitterly divisive politics (although, some might say that the filibuster has divded also).

However, the point I would like to make is that, even with this change, it would be unlikely that it would solve the problem that we are seeing play out over their judicial nominees. A poll that was taken of GOP Senators shows that there is little support for changing the rules. The GOP sees the same public polling we do, and they know that they are weakened by the DeLay allegations and the Terri Schiavo case, so when they see that a majority of the country is against the elimination of the filibuster, they don't want to toil. McCain, Snowe, Collins and Chafee have all said they won't vote to eliminate the filibuster. Hagel is likely to vote against. One more, we break the tie and the filibuster gets upheld.

So, while I disagree with your point, I still believe that it would not matter. In the end, the filibuster will either be upheld, or the GOP will see its demise as a majority party.

Does the Democrats tactic of using the filibuster to stop a judicial nomination from getting to the floor of the Senate violate the Constitution? If not, why not.
Filibusters are not prohibited in the Constitution. The Senate rules define the use of filibusters and cloture. Your second question is more appropriate.
Should the Senate rules be changed to permit cloture with a majority of senate votes instead of a supermajority?If the purpose of the filibuster is to keep the majority party from having absolute control and you were to alter the votes required for a cloture then the majority party would have absolute control, so the filibuster would be unnecessary. If you were to alter the Senate Rules like that, why wouldn't you just outlaw the filibuster?

I do not like the idea of government checks and balances because they are not actually checks and balances they are impediments. The elections are the checks and balances. The masses decided whether or not they like what is going on. A person questions their life when they enter the voting booth. Do I like how I am living? Do I like the direction in which our society is heading? If you say yes, the incumbent or incumbent party will win, if you say no, then their will be a new official elected. That is your checks and balance. Now, I can see everyone strapping their skis on so they can glide down the Slippery Slope toward Imperialism, but that outcome is unrealistic.

The traditional filibuster gets its power from the absense of a Senate rule limiting debate, so the only way to abolish the filibuster is to do what the House did, adopt rules that limit debate. Cloture, the ability to close debate and move on to a vote, was first instituted in 1917 and since 1949, has been modified almost every decade. Cloture has alread put a limit on the filibuster. In 1975, cloture was lowered from 2/3 to 3/5-- as you say, lowering it to a simple majority effectively abolishes the filibuster, but only when a majority can be mustered to oppose it-- it has not been very long since we had an evenly-split Senate, and in that situation, even a simple majority for cloture could be difficult to muster.

To fully "repeal" the filibuster would require adopting further limitations to debate, particularly time limits that would end debate even if there were not enough votes for cloture. Time limitations give rise to the fair distribution of debate time, and a host of other rules such as the House has adopted to control debate.

Merely lowering the cloture vote to a simple majority would not completely end the filibuster because Senators would still be able to speak as long as they wanted. It would merely make it more difficult for opponents of something to muster enough votes to keep the filibuster going.

The rule change that Dr. Frist proposed in June 2003 calls for a gradual lowering of the cloture requirement from 60 Senators to 50 over a period of time, but only for nominations. All other filibusters would remain intact. From the summary of the Frist-Miller proposal (pdf) on the filibuster page of Frist's web site:



The Frist-Miller proposal is not aggressive enough because it leaves the procedural filibuster's supermajority cloture intact. It is also a far cry from the nuclear option/constitutional option proposed by others to reduce cloture on almost all filibusters to a simple majority. However, it is a step in the right direction.

The Centrist Coalition has recently released an official statement on the issue of judicial appointments.

The full text can be found here

Personally I think they hit the nail on the head in their statement. IMHO the great hypocrisy here is that some are claiming a need to prevent one kind of political partisanship on the bench by promoting another. The same can be said of the opposite side when they make their own claims about politics in the judicary.

The Constitutionally designed balance of power in America is as effective today as it ever was, so long as the parties involved choose to continue to respect it. Choosing an end run around this designed limitation on power, regardless of the reason or the political side in question at the time, is a dangerous precedent that once established, could just as easily turn against those who initiated it.

The Checks and Balances of the Constitution should NOT become just another political football for the politicos to kick around. Messing with this design has far reaching implications that could irrevocably damage the nation as a whole.

Leave it alone. If you don't like a judicial ruling, then use the balancing power of the constitution to write and promote an Amendment to the constitution. This is a difficult process, but it is difficult by design to prevent abuse. Want someone appointed to the bench but don't have the votes to get the appointment to the floor? Then do what has been done throughout history in this kind of situation. Either reconsider, and propose a less partisan individual, or negotiate, deal, and maneuver to get the votes needed.

The failure to get someone appointed to the bench is not the fault of those that oppose the appointment alone. It is equally the fault of those that propose a candidate that others simply cannot support. It also shows their inability to negotiate, the very core of politics, especially in the Senate.

Does the Democrats tactic of using the filibuster to stop a judicial