Ah, the filibuster
Majority Leader Frist describes the filibuster as "unprecedented." Mr. Sprucewood, who makes an otherwise interesting and convincing argument, claims that such nominations to the Supreme Court have been stopped in the past "without the filibuster (a la Abe Fortas)." Now, I am not one to argue precedent, and I am swayed by Mr. Sprucewood's call to democratic sanity in many ways, however, let's be clear: this is neither "unprecedented" or always done differently in the past:Via CrooksandLiars, a video clip of CBS News discussing the filibuster of President Johnson's nominee to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1968: Abe Fortas.
By the way, it's looking increasingly likely that there will be a compromise.
posted by andrew golis @ 10:06 PM
3 Comments:
That's fine. And I generally accept the substance of your argument. But I still think it's ridiculous to act like this hasn't been used by Republicans in the past. Frist voted to to filibuster one of Clinton's nominees.
What Republican's continue to point to is that no judge has been successfully filibustered. BUT, Republican's and Democrats have used the filibuster as a threat and a bargaining chip. Both sides have also used every kind of in committee and out of committee delay tactic since the beginning of time. http://democrats.senate.gov/fact2.html
That being said, I'm all for figuring out a way to fix the system. But let's not act like this is some sort of grand "unprecedented" injustice.
word. then we agree! But it is a lot to expect us liberals to stand up for good government when we lose ideologically when no one has before. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, but it's a lot to ask...
sorry for my knee-jerk partisanship on this. it's a good example of where you get caught up in the argument and don't actually read. btw, the Crimson chimed in today on this very issues:
http://www.thecrimson.com/today/article507353.html
Post a Comment
<< Home