PhotoDude.com

Most of this anti-judicial nonsense just comes from the fact that the Republicans/”conservatives” don’t control the judiciary; neither do they control the media. Gee, which two institutions do they rail against all the time? Go figure. This isn’t troubling or scary to me because it’s normal.

Some of this is basic pandering to special interest groups for funds and votes, much like the Democrat courting of labor through historical alliances with the AFL-CIO and other various unions. These supposed Christians are merely useful idiots who are being manipulated to further the ambitions of corrupt and base politicians.

You brought up Eric Rudolph, but look at KKK literature from the 1920’s, when it was a “respectable” organization on par with the Knights of Columbus and flourished throughout large parts of the country. The rhetoric is remarkably similar, especially in what is considered the most concise piece of Klan literature, The Klan’s Fight for Americanism

Finally came the moral breakdown that has been going on for two decades. One by one all our moral standards went by the boards, or were so disregarded that they ceased to be binding. The sacredness of our Sabbath, of our homes, of chastity, and finally even of our right to teach our own children in our own schools fundamental facts and truths were torn away from us. Those who maintained the old standards did so only in the face of constant ridicule.

But wait, there’s more! Yes, they was going on about those durned Liberals even then. In this passage they talk of their “break with Liberalism” due to its permissiveness dealing with immigrants—not only did it excuse it, it “defended it”:

Liberalism today is charged in the mind of most Americans with nothing less than national, racial, and spiritual treason…[Liberalism has] become wholly academic, lost all touch with the plain people, disowned its instincts and common sense, and lived in a world of pure, high, groundless logic.

Here come the morals:

The old stock Americans believe in Liberalism, but not in this thing. It has undermined their Constitution and their national customs and institutions, it has corrupted the morals of their children, it has vitiated their though, it has degenerated and perverted their education, it has tried to destroy their God. They want no more of it. They are trying to get back to decency and common sense.

There’s more if you click on the link. It’s a PDF file. What’s funny about this literature is that it supports the separation of Church and State, but only because the KKK feared the Catholics (read: foreigners) and what they might do to the government. They supported separation if it kept the Catholics at bay, but if you read on, they use the same rhetoric as today, except it’s in the frame as Protestantism vs Catholocism.

Cynthia McKinney? That’s scary. But…. I’ve been calling my senators for weeks now urging them not to vote for the nucleur option. This is about checks and balances, and if the federal judges that Ronald Reagan and Bush I appointed are too liberal, then what kind of extremists do we have in power now? I understand that the 10 judicial appointments the Democrats are threatening to filibuster over have already had their nominations rejected last time! What’s wrong with submitting names that can pass scrutiny with even 60% of the Senate? Would 60% approval make them “too liberal”?

At any rate, I’m still waiting to hear back from my Senators with their position on the Nucleur Option, but I’m not holding my breath. I told them that if they vote for this extreme measure, that this Kennesaw resident would not only vote against them when they come up for re-election. But this resident will also work for their opponents, whoever they are. Which gets back to Cynthia McKinney….she wouldn’t possibly ever try to run for the Senate….Would she?

Paul, I thought the Rudolph rant was scarey in its similarity, but, wow, you topped it big time.

Richard: “Cynthia McKinney … she wouldn’t possibly ever try to run for the Senate”

Let’s not get carried away, now. Let’s also recall how well a more moderate black female Democrat from Dekalb did in the last Senatorial election. Oddly, she felt her quest was divinely inspired as well, but God sent her home

We can only hope the same will happen to some currently esconsed in Congress.

He can’t afford to look reasonable and push for compromise on this … if he wants to be President.

I read your whole post, but I didn’t see anything about a compromise being offered by the minority party anywhere. Not even a real filibuster in sight. Just the threat of one, really. That’s neither here nor there, and I don’t really care that much. These procedural battles are about as interesting as the $700 Pentagon toilet seats. Anybody with an ounce of sense knows that crap has been going for 200 years.

Of course they’re knee-walking drunk with power. They’re megalomaniac politicians. They have staffs of butt-kissers who tell them how GD wonderful they are from sunup to sundown. Again, to me, your surprise / shock / outrage / bemusemnt at this development is odd.

“I didn’t see anything about a compromise being offered by the minority party anywhere.”

When one side wants to continue doing things as they have been for ages (or at least, since 1975 when the filibuster breaking number was lowered from 67 to 60), and the other side wants to radically alter the rules of the Senate, who exactly is supposed to compromise? Perhaps those pushing change ought to be the ones to meet the “staus quo” halfway.

Furthermore, would it be considered a “compromise” to pass 190 judicial nominees and block 10? What’s that, 95%? Obstructionists! Would 195 and 5 be a compromise? Is it 199 and 1? Do they have to have it all? If so, how is that a compromise?

“Anybody with an ounce of sense knows that crap has been going for 200 years.”

Really? Please state for me one time other than 1975 when the limit for busting a filibuster has been lowered by the majority party to the detriment of the minority party. Please state for me one other time that Congress has spoken of taking action to impeach judges who do not believe in “God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government,” as opposed to the first paragraph of the Constitution, which says that “We, The People” are the source of “law, liberty, or government.” Please state for me one other time when the majority leader of the Senate has appeared at an event that paints his political opponents as “against people of faith.”

And let’s not be coy about what this is all meant to set up; the coming nomination of a new judge and/or chief justice when Rehnquist retires from the Supreme Court, as he surely will very soon. Then they’ll be able to ram through whatever nominee they want, with just 51 votes.

Please tell me one other time that’s happened.

If it’s true you “don’t really care that much” realize that for a lot of us, this past three months of the 109th Congress have marked a real turning point. One of revulsion at what the Republicans are doing with their complete control of the legislative and executive branches … they’re going after the judicial branch.

“Again, to me, your surprise / shock / outrage / bemusemnt at this development is odd”

If you don’t believe me, look around. I’m far from alone. If Bob Dole and John McCain aren’t enough for you, a lot of the people who helped create this Republican majority are flat out pissed.

Josh Chavetz “PATHETIC AND DISHONEST. Those are the only words I can think of to describe a major media event portraying Democrats as ‘against people of faith’ for blocking President Bush’s nominees. And I am thoroughly disgusted that the Senate majority leader is taking part. I can think of few better ways to drive me and my fellow independents into the arms of the Democrats.”

Joe Gandelman “If he does it, it’ll be a watershed moment — a transformational moment for the GOP … marking the political death of a dominant part of its party. Forget Democrats. Anyone who is a libertarian Republican, centrist, or independent voter has to be extremely concerned — and angered — by this.”

John Cole “I may have voted for my last Republican in a long time. These wingnut, know-nothing, fundamentalist creeps are scaring the shit out of me, and liberty is at stake when it comes to these law and order goons.”

To name a few. But it’s all good, because there’s not a thing we can do but blather. For another 19 months. And when the results come in November, 2006, and the Republicans lose control of the House (and slim their margin in the Senate), maybe then they’ll begin to see what they’ve done.

Because all these rule changes will be used against them someday.

But, yeah, Scott, I’m pretty incensed by this, and I’m a bit surprised that you don’t see the point, even if you don’t agree with it. Rhetoric is one thing, you’re right, that’s been going on for centuries. But this is structural change, and maybe you haven’t seen it, but it’s clear to me from my limited circle of non-Democratic contacts that there will be a harsh price for this. And Republicans will pay it, because they clearly are going at this full steam ahead, banners flying.

I’m not surprised that so many people are shocked by how out of control these guys have gotten.

But I am a little surprised by how many otherwise reasonable people didn’t see it coming.

Well, I guess I need to dig in a little deeper. I read some of the linked material in your original post, but not all of it. But as you yourself note, it was only 30 years ago that we dropped the filibuster-breaker number. That changed the structure of the Senate, no? I was only 15 at the time, but I don’t recall any great national outcry over that structural change. Different times, of course, and a different Senate.

But still…maybe we need to look at whay that number was changed (I have no earthly idea) and what were the arguments then and how do the arguments stack up to the arguments for proposed changes now and most importantly to me, how do they compare to the Founding Fathers’ intentions for the Senate as a body of the Congress?

But, again, I don’t think this is anything new under the sun or something that is shocking. Or any more disgusting than the normal politicking that existed at any other point in time. Of course the rule changes will be used against them. They’re politicians with naught but the short view…and knee-walking drunk, as you so aptly put it.

I’ll have to get back to you on the Frist/religion bit. That’s the part I’m least concerned about. Pimping for votes, demonizing opponents, making stupid choices—sounds like a politician to me.

“maybe we need to look at whay that number was changed”

What, you want me to do research? OK.

From A Brief History of Civil Rights in the United States of America

*******************************
The Democratic Party scored significant gains in the congressional elections of 1974. The large numbers of new Democrats elected to the Senate and the House of Representatives were in a reformist mood, and one of the things they wanted to reform was Congress itself.

In 1975 in the Senate, the number of votes required to cloture a filibuster was reduced from 2/3 to 3/5, from 67 votes to 60 votes if all senators were present and voting. It was believed that this lowered number of votes required for cloture would make it more difficult to sustain a filibuster in future debates, and the end result would be the Senate would have an “easier time” enacting civil rights bills.

This new cloture rule did not reduce the use of the filibuster in the U.S. Senate, however. In fact, if anything, it appeared to make the filibuster a more acceptable legislative weapon, even for non-southerners. Groups of senators began to filibuster non-civil rights bills, thus requiring the Senate leadership to produce a 3/5 vote or give up on the particular bill in question. Senators found filibusters to be a particularly effective way to kill bills they opposed late in the legislative session when there was little time remaining and the leadership was anxious to enact more important bills prior to adjournment.
*******************************

Damn Democrats. In an effort to “make it easier” to pass civil rights legislation (um, how much was passed after 1975?), they lowered the bar. In effect, they diminished the power of the minority party. Still, at 60 votes, the bar required a continuation of consensus government, at the 60% level.

Now the Republicans want half plus one.

OK, two wrongs, separated by 30 years, make a right. Forget I said a thing.

If you want to go totally bottom line, the Constitution give the Senate the right to make its own rules, and places no real restrictions on that (although it’s taken a two thirds vote in the past). They have the Constitutional right to pass rules that require all Senators to wear blue suits, red ties, with a flag pin on their lapel. And anything else they want. “We, The People,” be damned, as only a third of them are up for reelection in any given election year.

The question becomes, at what point do these changes make the Senate something other than the Senate in the eyes of the people. And from what I see, a lot of people are already answering that question.

Now, I always thought of myself as pretty damn cynical, but you say this isn’t “any more disgusting than the normal politicking that existed at any other point in time”. And you could be right. So maybe you top me.

But let me ask you this: is it possible that We, The People get to draw the line at any point, and say “this disgusting tit-for tat must end”? Or must we just shrug our shoulders and say “feh, more of same”?

Because I’m so fed up with both parties, while I see major problems unaddressed, and “more of same” just ain’t cuttin’ it for me.

Call me Pollyanna, but I’m thinking I have a right to demand better.

Heh. I didn’t expect you to do my research. I was gonna go look it up, but thanks for doing it. So, again, let’s drop the party-bashing and look at this for what it is. Rank political power-mongering. I don’t think it’s being cynical to acknowledge that, as such. I do, though, acknowledge that I’m cynical in believing that it is practically impossible for “We, the People” to find a man or woman who posesses the drive to rise to level of national electoral politics that go with being a Senator who isn’t, at the most basic level, driven by a power lust. That drive for power manifested itself in 1975, and it’s manifesting itself again 30 years later. That, to me is inevitable and history in motion.

So now, for your next research project, I guess I need to understand the importance of the filibuster and how it’s passing from the floor of the Senate is going to effect how the Senate works in service to the ideals of the Founding Fathers and to American citizens. It might be that it has absolutely no standing in their eyes, and it might be that it’s a crucial underpinning of the Constituion. I’m only half-kidding. About the research project, that is. I definitely need to understand. But I need to go to my dental appointment first.

BTW, I’m not arguing that one side is right or another is wrong. I’m mainly interested in the dialogue, and getting semi-smarter in the process. And I don’t think you’re a Pollyanna for wanting good government, either. So do I.

One can’t help but wonder if we are witnessing an embryonic attempt at a Constitutional coup, by people who claim they hold a monopoly on faith. And now they want to force their faith on us, starting with the judges.

I keep telling you – RAH is spinning in his grave. Nehemiah Scudder is alive and well and firmly entrenched in Washington, D.C.

“If This Goes On….”

Two links for you: – Claremont Institute (my go-to guys for constitutional matters)

A better argument is Long’s reminder to readers that, whatever the Senate’s constitutional role, there is nothing in the Constitution which endorses a constitutional check for a minority of senators in the judicial appointment process. The tiresome claim that Republicans are contemplating the abolition of one of the constitutional checks and balances needs to be exposed for the nonsense that it is.
– Wendy Long in the Washington Times

Fact: The filibuster is nowhere in the Constitution. It is not among the “checks and balances” our Founding Fathers created. It did not even exist until the 1830s, and the “tradition” involves legislation, not judicial appointments. The filibuster was used to defend slavery and oppose the Civil Rights Act — hardly noble purposes. The current obstruction of judges is no “traditional” filibuster: it is the first time in more than 200 years that either party has filibustered to keep judges with majority support off the federal bench.

So, if you read those, you learn that filibuster is something that got it’s start in the 1830s and was designed to forestall the passing of legislation at the end of a session. Deploying it against judidicial nominations is definitely an entirely new phenomenon.

We also learn that the complaints and the Nuclear Option consideration comes about because of the refusal to even allow a vote on federal appelate judges, AKA the folks who do make decisions on constitutionality. That’s your unconfirmed 10%, Reid, and you can surely understand why a party with control of two branches of our government feel like they have the right to select federal appellate judges that adhere to their line of thinking. That’s just one of the things that goes with being a republican (note little r) state.

So, again, I say we’re watching what is essentially a procedural battle in the Senate, not an earth-shattering sundering of the Constitution. That is NOT to say that there will not be unintended consequences, but requiring only a plurality to end a filibuster is something I can live with (no matter who’s in power), just going purely from the intentions of the founders. YMMV, obviously.

“I say we’re watching what is essentially a procedural battle in the Senate, not an earth-shattering sundering of the Constitution”

I guess my point is that procedural battles can be a sundering of the Constitution, in intent if not word. As I’ve already said, the Senate has the right to make whatever rules for itself that it can pass. And the filibuster is neither in the Constitution, nor excluded from Senate rules.

But the Senate has always been the more steady and deliberative of our two legislative bodies. It has generally been a place where consensus rule had a place to breath, and provide moderation compared to “the House of the People.”

Now going to be half plus one.

Here’s where we’re both probably right, Scott. Someday, 5, 10, 20 years from now, the Republicans are going to be the minority party, and the Dems will be running roughshod over them with half plus one votes. And some poor Republican will load up the day’s version of Google, and look back in time to find out how the hell they got into this mess. And they’ll find some ancient page where PhotoDude and TheFatGuy are arguing and explaining the history of how they got where they are.

And they’ll say “those Damn Republicans! ... OK, three wrongs, separated by 50 years, make a right. Forget I said a thing.”

Having said all that, I hope the Republican Party won’t be too surprised that there’s still a steep price to be paid, even if everything you do is perfectly legal. I hope Bob Dole will still be around to remind them, “I told you so” (yeah, it’s not just non-Republicans who feel this way, but party fractures? No problem!)

Because even after we’ve gone back and forth, I’ll still be (painfilly) voting for Cynthia McKinney is 2006, rather than risk sending another Republican to Congress. Until they realize that just because you have the power to do something doesn’t mean it is in your or the country’s best interest.

They’ll learn that, sooner or later. The hard way, I’m guessing.

I’ve been doing a bit of research, too…

“It is not among the “checks and balances” our Founding Fathers created.”

This is true. But James Madison wrote about the dangers of the “violence of faction” in the Federalist Papers

************************************
The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.

A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.
************************************

Wow, sounds like today, eh? So, no, there’s no Constitutional mandate that specifies a word about filibusters, but the foundation of thought behind the Constitution included the idea that minority views should be respected, and indeed anticipated a body “much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.” And here we are.

Those guys really were good.

“Deploying it against judidicial nominations is definitely an entirely new phenomenon”

False: "In 1968, Republicans filibustered President Lyndon B. Johnson's choice of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas to be chief justice, but Johnson withdrew the nomination in the face of Fortas's likely rejection by the Senate"

False, more recently, too

************************************
Republicans insist that judicial filibusters never happened before. Frist put it this way: “In February 2003 the minority radically broke with tradition and precedent and launched the first-ever filibuster of a judicial nominee who had majority support.” In truth, no one should understand the legitimacy of judicial filibusters better than Bill Frist. On March 9, 2000, Frist participated in a filibuster of Richard Paez, President Clinton’s nominee to the Ninth Circuit. When confronted about his vote late last year, Frist claimed he filibustered Paez for “scheduling” purposes. Not true. A press release by former Senator Bob Smith titled “Smith Leads Effort to Block Activist Judicial Nominees” plainly states that the intent of the filibuster was to “block” the Paez nomination.

In fact, Paez was only one of at least six filibusters Republicans attempted during the Clinton years. Senator Orrin Hatch and others argue that these filibusters don’t count because they ultimately weren’t successful in blocking the nominees. All that proves, however, is that Clinton’s nominees were moderate enough to secure sixty votes. It also suggests the remedy to Bush’s problem: Stop nominating extremist judges to the federal bench.
************************************

Goodness, Frist isn’t being honest in his rhetoric, and is, in fact, a hypocrite on this matter? Shocking.

The filibuster is the specific tactic being addressed, and if you reduce to that, it seems like no big deal. But this isn’t about just a specific Senate procedure, this is a tactical move that has a strategic goal. The goal getting that last 5% of Bush’s nominees passed on a half plus one vote. And then whomever he wants to put on the Supreme Court ... for life ... merely on a purely partisan up-down vote.

Now, replace the name “Bush” with “Clinton,” and with that context in mind, read the below:

“Yes, the filibuster plays an important role in protecting minority interests when it comes to legislation. But unfair laws can be overturned or amended at any time. If minority interests are trampled, the aggrieved parties can take their case to the American people and set the country down a new path. Federal judges, however, are nominated for life. Those confirmed by this Congress will be issuing important rulings long after the current group of politicians is history. These judges should not be hard-line ideologues for the controlling political party. They should be acceptable to a broad range of Americans. In other words, if a judicial nominee can’t secure sixty votes in the Senate, he or she is not a good choice for the federal bench.”

As Dole and McCain have pointed out, the Republicans will not always be the party in control of both chambers of Congress, and these rule changes will be used against them.

And the bottom line, I suppose, is that you and I … We, The People … are pretty powerless during this little bitch-slap-fest. They’re gonna do what they’re gonna do. But they’re foolish if they think they won’t be judged on it.

I’m just sayin’ ... I am most like an elephant when it comes to memory. In 2006, I will remember all of this, whenever I see a Republican name on the ballot. And from what I’ve read over the past week, especially among centrists, moderates, and independents (most of whom voted Republican last time), there are lots who feel the same way. Like, maybe the margin of victory for Bush last November?

We the people, a concept lost on the xtian soldiers marching off to make war against me and any other infidels that have no love for their god. I often wonder when they are going to try to come get me and move me off to a reservation and bible camp, Cobb county being the land of the born again, cell phone using, suv driving soccer moms of America that it is.

Oh well, back to reading my American Rifleman that came in today’s post. Perhaps I am safe for a while. They tend to think that only their kind are life members of the NRA.

When politicians forget that our fore fathers set down rules to protect us from the tyrany of the majority and to preserve freedom from religion, we should all be afraid. And I am not being my usual sarcastic self here. I really am afraid.

I think we’ve reached the point, or maybe it’s me, where there is no answer. Protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority is a bedrock American principle. No one can argue against that.

However, when the minority becomes the majority, through peaceful electoral means, what then? There was no protection for me from a gun-banning government, just to use one example. How do I restore those rights without trampling on a minority somewhere? How can I be sure that that right won’t be made a nullity again without putting judges in a position to guarantee it? Isn’t that why I go to the polls?

OK, that’s enough poli-sci for one week for me. You called me cynical earlier, and I think you’re right. Seems kind of pointless to even bother thinking about it.

“Protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority is a bedrock American principle. No one can argue against that. However, when the minority becomes the majority, through peaceful electoral means, what then?”

I think a large part of what we’re seeing, in fact, isn’t new, as you’ve somehwat been suggesting all along. Even during my short adult lifetime, it’s clear that American politics is a pendulum, and it swings from left to right, and then swings right to left. It’s almost an inviolable physical principle.

However … when it is clearly swinging in one direction, as it has been over the past couple of years, there are always those “Of That Direction” who will gleefully try to push that pendulum a bit further in its swing. A lot further.

And, invariably, it swings back to crush them like a bug. Ask Newt Gingrich. This time, it will be Tom DeLay … and maybe Frist, too, if he continues down the path of Political Holiness. I guess we just get to sit back, pop a brewski, and watch.

“You called me cynical earlier, and I think you’re right. Seems kind of pointless to even bother thinking about it”

Scott, I mentioned cynicism because I am usually the King of it, and you threatened my throne. I’m thankful that, at the very least, the two of us can have a civil discussion about this, even if just among us cynics.

Actually, I think my cynicism is defective. I’ll have a cynical reaction, like “there they go again,” yet one half of me is enraged by the very same act the other half recognizes as “more of same.”

And you see it pour out here. As a fellow cynic, I’m sure you find that confusing. So do I. But, to quote an obscure TV line, “this is who we are.”

My own personal cynicism is mostly short-term, and it’s tempered by the fact that, to use your phrase about Madison, “Those guys were really good.”

Supernaturally good—I’ll ever be in awe at this thing they accomplished.

Excellent post! I equate Rudolph to any other terrorist. But I find it funny that they describe him as a Christian extremist in the MSM. But First and DeLay are going to bury themselves with this crap.