Filibusted

In their quest to thwart President Obama, Republicans do not fear the hobgoblin of consistency.

For much of this decade, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, now the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, led the fight against Democratic filibusters of George W. Bush's judicial nominees. He decried Democrats' "unprecedented, obstructive tactics." To have Bush nominees "opposed on a partisan filibuster, it is really wrong," he added. He demanded they get "an up-and-down vote." He praised Republican leaders because they "opposed judicial filibusters" and have "been consistent on this issue even when it was not to their political benefit to do so."

So now a Democratic president is in the White House and he has nominated his first appellate judicial nominee, U.S. District Judge David Hamilton. And what did Sessions do? He went to the floor and led a filibuster.

"I opposed filibusters before," the Alabaman said with his trademark twang. But in this case, he went on, "I don't agree with his judicial philosophy. Therefore, I believe this side cannot acquiesce into a philosophy that says that Democratic presidents can get their judges confirmed with 50 votes."

Uh-huh.

Ten of the Senate's 40 Republicans, attempting some measure of consistency, parted ways with Sessions and voted with Democrats in a resounding 70 to 29 vote to break the filibuster. But the rest abandoned their deeply held views of just a few years ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/17/AR2009111703401_pf.html

Can you identify an asshole when you see one? (Look no further than Jeff Sessions.)

I have doubts Reid has the cajones to stick it out and break a fillibuster. Remember when the GOOP threatened the "nuclear option", we sure don't hear about that now. I say bring 'em on. If Cobourn wants to be a total asshat and want the entire bill read...so be it, let them sit and hold the floor until they drop. If Droopy Liebermann wants to piss and moan, let him do it for hours on end. They're going to fight and delay anyway...let's get this out of the way now and see how long they can dance. Then force through a cloiture vote to get 51 votes for final passage.

But, alas, Reid has compromised himself so many times he's suffering from PTSD.

. . . but sooner or later we are going to have to admit that the U.S. Constitution is to frustrate majorities. Not only are we the only country in the civilized world where the head of state can lose the popular vote and still take office (ie. January 20, 2001), but our legislature seems to be a place where ideas in the public interest go to die. There is a serious need to "re-democratize" our government as well as our economy. Healthcare is a huge example of how this system shreds the public interest, even with popular najorities. In retrospect, we should have let the Republicans kill the filibuster on their watch (remember the "nuclear option" they discussed to get Bushes nominees through).

Frankly, all the Constitutional issues that make real democracy impossible, and all the institutional rules, like the filibuster, mean that our government is becoming ever more ineffective. Thomas Jefferson did not foresee the Constitution lasting this long without more drastic amendments. That's why the Constitution allows for the possibility of new "Constitutional Conventions" for when the old one has out-lived itself. We've been at that point for a long time, but people are too afraid of what might come out of it (Lord knows I understand -- the Teabaggers would go nuts during such an event).

Tony Benn noted in Michael Moore's "Sicko" that democracy is the most radical of all ideas -- because it empowers the otherwise powerless. I think that strengthening democracy, and making it more "democratic" would be the best hope for the future of the nation and the world -- and the best hope for strengthening the American Left.