Judge Confirmations

[Briareos]

None of these judges have been rejected. They haven't been allowed to even have a vote on acceptance or rejection. And that 5% number is misleading most of those were just district court judges when you get to appelate level thats then the rate of stalled votes is much higher. The Consitituion says the Senate has a advise and consent role. Not a supermajority needed role (which in fact was given to ratifying treaties in the same section of the constitution).

[Brenz]

None of which changes the fact that a proposal to limit debate in Congress is about the most hideous, un-American thing structurally conceivable.

I'm sorry to say when I read about this petition I thought I was still reading the schematic of the end times for a minute or two.

[Briareos]

This has nothing to do with limiting debate. This is about preventing a minorty from abusing a rule in a wholly unconstitutional way from preventing the senate to aprove or deny a presidents choices on who he nominates as a judicial nominee.

[Steven Grant]

The Republicans have never had a problem using the same games under a Democratic president, and I imagine they will bitch mightily and try to reverse any changes if they should ever find themselves in that situation again.

It's entirely political.

[NatGertler]

This has nothing to do with limiting debate.Of course it does. Frist is talking about changing Senate Rule XXII -- are familiar with what that is?

The -goal- may not be to limit debate. The -goal- may be to get activist ultra-right-wing judges appointed in locations where they can do the most damage. But the tools to be used to that end are to limit debate.

[Briareos]

The Goal is to allow elected officials to you know vote

[Briareos]

The Republicans have never had a problem using the same games under a Democratic president, and I imagine they will bitch mightily and try to reverse any changes if they should ever find themselves in that situation again.

It's entirely political.

Name me one judge Clinton sent that was voted down in comittee that had a prayer of getting confirmed by a full vote of the senate.

[NatGertler]

The Goal is to allow elected officials to you know voteNo, Frist has shown little concern for the process of voting in the past. He is seeking to limit debate in order to achieve a specific result in these specific cases.

(Oh,and don't try to paint Frist as someone just supporting the idea of constitutional law. He backs the anti-gay-marriage amendment... which is the thing the Republicans are getting behind because they don't like the effects of states practicicing constitutional law.)

[Steven Grant]

Name me one judge Clinton sent that was voted down in comittee that had a prayer of getting confirmed by a full vote of the senate.

We'll never really know, will we?

[Briareos]

No Clinton Judge that was rejected in commitee ever came close to having the 50 votes needed for approval. Just as we know that if the democrats stopped their fillabuster the judges would easily be aproved.

[Samurai]

We'll never really know, will we?
Then name one judge nominee fillibustered by the Reps.

You can't justify dirty Democrat ploys by saying "I'm sure the Reps will do it too someday, even though they never have in the past..."

[NatGertler]

Are you saying that Republicans, who have certainly filibustered in the past to avoid things they don't like and who have certainly taken steps to keep a president's judicial choices from reaching a vote of the full body, would not be smart enough to combine the two?

But for the record: Abe Fortas, nominee for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, was filibustered by the Republicans. Yes folks, it is indeed a practice the GOP has used.

[bartl]

This has nothing to do with limiting debate. This is about preventing a minorty from abusing a rule in a wholly unconstitutional way from preventing the senate to aprove or deny a presidents choices on who he nominates as a judicial nominee.
The problem is that it can be used either way. The current rule was a compromise; the idea was to allow a large minority that was strongly against a law can exercise a form of veto power so as not allow a simple majority to stifle debate. This worked when most problems crossed party lines. The problem is not the rule, but parties (BOTH parties) often acting in lockstep, even on relatively minor issues.

New York has had this problem for years, where party machines control the local voting in both parties, and any legislator who doesn't toe the party line finds himself without a job come next election, so New York State law is decided entirely by 3 people; the majority leaders of both houses (the state is gerrymandered so that Republicans control the Senate, and the Democrats control the Assembly) and the governor, where all three have to agree.

Actually, the lockstep system can actually work well under two conditions: 1) No party has a supermajority in the Congress, and, 2) The President is not the same party as the majority party.

[bartl]

(Oh,and don't try to paint Frist as someone just supporting the idea of constitutional law. He backs the anti-gay-marriage amendment... which is the thing the Republicans are getting behind because they don't like the effects of states practicicing constitutional law.)
The impetus of anti-Gay Marriage Amendment (which, by the way, I oppose) is because, in current practice, that is the check on the judiciary. The current wording alllows individual states to allow gay marriage; what it does is prevent the judiciary from forcing states that do not recognize gay marriage to do so.

The Constitution explicitly gives the Congress the right to decide which contracts formed in one state must be recognized in other states, including marriage. Interracial marriage was forced through by the courts, on the basis of the 14th Amendment. It is not as certain that it can be used on gay marriage (as the ERA was never ratified); the push for an amendment is not so much a veto of the courts, as a pre-emptive attack.

Certainly, in the issue of gay marriage, there are good (and bad) arguments on both sides, and the real problems, like many issues these days, are based not in the issue itself, but the ultimate goals of the more radical on both sides. Frankly, the real problem is that the institution of marriage has been corrupted, and many of the problems which gay marriage would solve could also be solved by doing some repair work, bringing marriage back to its original purpose of creating a stable environment in which to raise children, and creating alternatives for the side benefits (virtually all of which could be done by allowing a "designated next of kin", allowing things like insurance, inheritance, joint tax returns, etc.).

[bartl]

Then name one judge nominee fillibustered by the Reps.

You can't justify dirty Democrat ploys by saying "I'm sure the Reps will do it too someday, even though they never have in the past..."
To add on to Mr. Gertler's comments, it is important, when passing a law, to be far-sighted. This is why, for example, many conservatives had and have major problems with many parts of the Patriot Act. While a standard argument by proponents say, "Please show how the Patriot Act has been abused", what more holistic thinkers see is the POTENTIAL for abuse by future administrations, by which time it might be too late to fix it (just look at what Bill Clinton did with the news media; from a Machievellian point of view, his major tactical error was to dismiss the power of radio, concentrating on newspapers and television).

[Samurai]

Are you saying that Republicans, who have certainly filibustered in the past to avoid things they don't like and who have certainly taken steps to keep a president's judicial choices from reaching a vote of the full body, would not be smart enough to combine the two?

But for the record: Abe Fortas, nominee for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, was filibustered by the Republicans. Yes folks, it is indeed a practice the GOP has used.
One difference is that Abe Fortas was already a Supreme Court Judge. The question was whether he should be made Chief Justice or not, which is somewhat different IMO. Also, there was no clear majority of Senators who favored Fortas even if it had gone up for a full vote. There were only 45 confirmed votes in his favor. By contrast, today's nominees clearly would pass confirmation were they allowed to come to a vote.

Still, it looks like you did find 1 Republican filibuster...

[Briareos]

And lets not forget the democrats broke a deal that the president made with them. He'd renominated some of Clinton's judges in return the dems said they would let his pass. They lied and broke the agreement and started fillbustering as soon as clinton's were confirmed. They did it to even artifically inflate the rates of judges they approved so they could say "See we're not obstructing everything"

[NatGertler]

One difference is that Abe Fortas was already a Supreme Court Judge. The question was whether he should be made Chief Justice or not, which is somewhat different IMO.I can't see that a filibuster over Fortas being moved to a higher judicial position is significantly different from, say, the filibuster over Judge Pickering being moved from a district court to an appeals court.

[NatGertler]

The current wording alllows individual states to allow gay marriage; what it does is prevent the judiciary from forcing states that do not recognize gay marriage to do so.Yes, the current wording -- or at least the wording I can find at the moment -- prevents state courts from recognizing the protections offered in their state constitutions. It attacks the heart of the concept that a constitution can provide protections that go beyond the whims of the moment. Even if a state were to pass a constitutional amendment to specifically allow gay marriage in their state, that could not be enforced. Worse yet, since the power of other laws in the state flows from the state constitution, it could well be ruled that the enforcing of any state law which permits gay marriage would violate the federal constitution. So this all goes far beyond states recognizing certain marriages from other states.

And there is one unexpected consequence that could arise from all this. You see, judges are not freed from recognizing the power of their state constitution, they're just forbidden from reaching this one specific result from it. So if the state constitution is read to say that you cannot discriminate against a couple on the basis of their genders, and if the federal Constitution says that you cannot grant marriage to same-sex couples on that basis, the state judge is still left with one solution which would satisfy both constitutions, a solution which (it can be argued) he must go to: cease recognition of all marriages. (I don't know of any federal law that requires state recognition of marriage, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.)

That'd cause a few fireworks.

[bartl]

Yes, the current wording -- or at least the wording I can find at the moment -- prevents state courts from recognizing the protections offered in their state constitutions. It attacks the heart of the concept that a constitution can provide protections that go beyond the whims of the moment. Even if a state were to pass a constitutional amendment to specifically allow gay marriage in their state, that could not be enforced.
First of all, there are those who consider gay marriage to be the "whim of the moment." The problem I see on both sides is that nobody seems to want to come out with an operational definition of marriage (they concentrate on what a marriage contains rather than what a marriage is). Among other things, there is an unadressed question of whether, legally speaking, marriage is a right or a privilege.

Second of all, there seem to be multiple wordings of the amendment around. Some match the Defense of Marriage Act (which prevents federal courts from forcing states that don't recognize gay marriage from recognizing gay marriages performed in other states). The current wording does allow individual states to have gay marriage, although it would not be recognized on a national level (e.g. income tax, social security):

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

This also has the effect of, in individual states, putting the question of gay marriage in the hands of the legislature rather than the judiciary.

[NatGertler]

The current wording does allow individual states to have gay marriageThat is at best arguable. The first sentence of the version you post would appear to cover all of the United States, and not just apply to the federal government, although it may not have the same impact on civil unions. The second sentence would appear to depower courts that operate based on the state constitution from having any power over the matter -- even if it's in the state law, and especially if its in the state constitution.

The version that was just put before the House reads
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of a legal union of a man and a woman. No court of the United States or of any State shall have jurisdiction to determine whether this Constitution or the constitution of any State requires that the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon any union other than a legal union between one man and one woman. No State shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State concerning a union between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage, or as having the legal incidents of marriage, under the laws of such other State.So yes, they are striving to strip away the power of courts and of consitutions because, alas, the power of judicial logic and the beliefs against discrimination that were put into state constitutions do not fit in with their little hate-based anti-family views.