Filibuster Vote Will Be Hard to Predict

Filibuster Vote Will Be Hard to Predict
Undecided Republicans Are Big Unknown

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 28, 2005; Page A04

As few as two or three uncommitted GOP senators have left Democrats and Republicans uncertain who might prevail in an eventual showdown in the battle over judicial filibusters, sources in both parties said yesterday.

-snip-
Democrats say a two-thirds majority is required to change Senate rules, but Republicans plan to use a constitutional argument to contend that a simple majority will suffice to ban judicial filibusters. For three months, lawmakers, aides and lobbyists have speculated on whether Frist can muster the 50 votes needed to enable Cheney to put him over the top.

Frist can lose only five Republicans, and three appear almost surely gone. Sens. Lincoln D. Chafee (R.I.), John McCain (Ariz.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) have condemned the proposed rule change so sternly that party leaders assume they will side with Democrats. Many Republicans also expect to lose Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), although she remains publicly uncommitted. Collins "believes that the filibuster has been overused but would like to see the situation resolved through negotiation rather than a rule change," her office said yesterday.

If Collins, Chafee, McCain and Snowe oppose the change, then Frist could suffer only one more GOP defection. Speculation hangs most heavily on Sens. John W. Warner (Va.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Arlen Specter (Pa.), all of whom say they are undecided.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/27/AR2005042702088.html

They do not have the party discipline.

the filibuster rule. It has been a mainstay in the continuance
of the oligarchy since the Civil War, the one-size-fits-all excuse
for preventing political and economic reform of all stripes.

Flame away if you must.

Chief Justice Rev. Pat Robertson
Justice Abu Al Gonzalez

and so on

the filibuster is the only thing preventing that now

and perhaps -- well, here, take a look at how Al Gore discussed the Constitutional / political / governance issues involved:

Al Gore's speech for MoveOn April 27, 2005
Breaking the Rules to Destroy Our Courts
http://www.algore-08.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=224&Itemid=123

What the framers of the Constitution did, which was brilliance itself, was to ensure, with its various checks and balances, that there would be no "tyrrany of the majority."

The majority is not always right. In fact, where great social issues are concerned, the majority is RARELY right. If the majority were allowed to rule, untrammeled, we would still have slavery, women would not have the vote, etc., etc.

There HAS to be a way to prevent "the majority" from running roughshod over ALL dissenting, minority voices. In the Senate, the fillibuster is key to that democracy-promoting principle which is enshrined in our Constitution in other ways.

How do you think parliamentary systems with no filibuster rule survive?
How do they prevent the majority from tyrannizing them?

In fact majority rule is what democracy is all about, within the bounds
provided by the Constitution, and the notion that it is to be feared is
anti-democratic. To be sure we need honest election systems and honest
judicial systems, but the notion that we must reject majority rule to
defend against that corruption is wrong.

and when they control the Supreme Court, they STAY STOLEN.

The filibuster rule is basically a mechanism for defending minorities. It is notable that it is not in the constitution, but that the senate has found that it effectively needs it. The constitution does have other "super majority" rules. Furthermore, congress in both houses and under both parties has found "super majority" requirements useful for a variety of issues, mostly having to do with maintaining order.

Parliaments don't seem to need to do this, although Italy's might benefit I dunno. But because their governments can be "dissolved" over a single lost vote in essence, minorities can exact an large, and immediate cost for extreme excess. Although this does not work in the same way as a filibuster, it has the same kinds of threat value to the ruling majority.

This attempt seems so foolish for the GOP. What will they gain? Individual GOP senators use the filibuster themselves. They are getting something like 95% of their judicial nominations through. Are these 10 individuals worth it? Surely they have more available candidates. This isn't about these 10, and the GOP should think that through carefully because they could find Frist being as much of a "hammer" as Delay if he gets this kind of power. Building concensus is always useful, even to those in the majority power.

But Napoleon's quote about never assigning to malice what is
adequately explained by incompetence seems to apply too.

Followed through, it has the potential to destroy the hammerlock the
two-party system has had on US politics since the civil war. I
consider that a good thing, hence my attitude.

Unlike others in this thread, I do not fear a Nazi takeover of this
country, not that I think the Bushites would not try, but I don't
think they can.

You REALLY don't understand what is at stake here. This is IT.
We are teetering on the abyss.

The kind of "reform" they would push through is called THEOCRACY!
They would pack the Supreme Court with Fundies. Those are all
lifetime appointments! Every close or seemingly-close election
would get appealed to the Supreme Court and handed to the Republicans.
They would eliminate all separation between their church and the state.

Democrats would effectively have been run out of town.
The Republican's wet dream. Permanent one-party rule.
No more two-party system.
No more democracy.

This change would ensure that we NEVER get back into power again.