Vox Blogoli 2.2: Objective in Sight
Here's an After Action Review of the battle to this point over the GOP Senate judiciary strategy and whether Republicans should ape Grant (fight!) or McClellan (prepare):
Good and Evil News believes the judiciary will be the key lever of power for decades to come---Grant.
Budman doesn't like the choices; war is hell, after all---Sherman.
View from A Height finds a precedent in former GOP House Speaker and master tactician Thomas Reed---Grant.
Carreterus Linnaeas recommends the first strike option---Grant.
Bunker Busting Bunnies advises letting the chips fall where they may, and notes that forcing the MSM to cover this helps the GOP---Grant.
Kyzylkum wants to see the rules changed around cloture votes and a group slate up-or-down vote---Grant.
GrannyHelen at Kos says the GOP must compromise or die, and that the Democrats are simply representing their constituents by obstructing Bush's judicial picks---McClellan.
Matthew Maynard counters that one definition of tyranny is minority rule---Grant.
Opaque Lucidity posits that the best guarantor of the will of the people being honored is to seat judges which will not overturn it arbitrarily---Grant.
Mythusmage says render the Dems irrelevant, and wants a stronger option than Grant---Sherman.
The Mortgage Blog issues a call to arms for the GOP---Grant.
Right Mom points out that Harry Reid is Newt Gingrich minus ideas, and the GOP should welcome the opportunity to expose the Dems' lack of same---Grant.
The Curt Jester is skeptical of Republican intestinal fortitude, but prefers the nuclear option to having Lucy jerk the football away from Charlie Brown yet again---Grant.
Little Red Blog explodes the fallacy of the Senate as co-equal with the President in the arena of judicial appointments, and notes that their historic adoption of filibustering judicial appointees is nothing less than an effort to force the GOP to attain a supermajority where no such requirement previously existed---Grant.
At the Hundredth Meridian notes that to follow Grant's strategy, one must be led by a Grant, as the GOP is not---McClellan.
Taxable Talk sees some sort of compromise between Grant and McClellan in the offing, though hopefully not a Petain---Neither.
Spinning Clay notes that when your enemy is going Lee, you'd be well-advised to go Grant yourself---Grant.
XBIP calls, "Shut it down"---Grant.
Americanian fears that Grant is nonexistent in the GOP Senate ranks---McClellan.
One Clear Call says minority rule is tyranny and going Grant is a no-brainer---Grant.
All right, so some new angles in this batch.
The questions raised this round seem to me to be:
1. Should the Democrats be allowed to filibuster judicial nominees and therefore impose a 60-vote supermajority for advise and consent for them?
2. Will anyone in the GOP Senate leadership have the guts to vigorously oppose the Democrats on this?
3. Will obstruction of Bush judicial appointees help or hurt the Democrats?
To the first question, I think the answer is clearly no. GrannyHelen at Kos tries to advance the claim that Democrats are merely representing their constituents and that the GOP should be forced to pick appointees which Democrats support. That is patent nonsense, for the reasons several bloggers mention---namely majority rule. The objective is to satisfy the majority of Americans, not a rump minority. Moreover, 45% of Americans are not opposed to Bush's judicial nominees, even though 45% of the Senate is in lockstep opposition. This has a lot more to do with party strategy and discipline than it does with representing your average Americans.
Moreover, within each Senator's constituency is a large number of folks who didn't vote for them. How is it that representing a Senate constituency means advancing the cause of a bare majority at best, while the only man to go before the electoral judgment of every single voting American needs to appeal to more than 60%? I think you know the answer.
And if the shoe was on the other foot, you'd hear Kos advocating passionately for "the will of the people" and majoritarian view. It's a weak argument, even if politely put this time.
As for the second question, the history of the Senate GOP hardly warms the heart that our senators will have the backbone to fight Wimpy Harry. That's okay---we'll be their backbone. Arlen Specter received a taste of what is to come if the GOP wavers. We won't let them cave, and neither will Bush.
To whether all this will help or hurt Democrats, I think the answer is it will hurt them. Tom Daschle was tossed out of office for being a liar and a whiner. He gladhanded with Bush whenever he needed to pull the wool over South Dakotans' eyes yet again, then went back and fought like a demon to prevent Bush from doing anything he was elected to do. He's gone now.
If you want a good indication of what the likely outcome is for Senate Democrats, keep a close eye on Hillary Clinton. She's tacking Right to provide some cover for the battles to come. She's not doing that because she wants to---she's the Madame DeFarge of the Democratic Party, after all. She's doing that because her lust for power outweighs her lust for her ideology.
Senators have to be more centrist than House members because their constituents are much more politically diverse. If the Democrats fail to fire up their base into a frenzy over this, they're done.
Moreover, the rules they set now will come back to haunt them in any future Democrat administration. The Republicans are a lot closer to a 60-seat supermajority in the Senate than the Democrats are, after all.
Note also that every blog who wishes well for the GOP advocates a Grant (or Sherman!) approach, even if they think the GOP will go McClellan. That's significant.
The GOP base is strapping on their shields and sharpening their swords. Whether Frist is McClellan or Grant, I guarantee you he will be in the thick of the fray shortly, like it or not.
[Edited to note that it was GrannyHelen at Kos, not Kos, who posed the Democrats-representing-their-constituents argument. Also eliminated the description of Kos as a Democratic party hard-liner, as I have no idea whether such a description would fit GrannyHelen. Thanks to Beldar for commenting on this post, for catching the error, and for thus giving me the opportunity to correct it. My apologies to Kos for the original erroneous attribution. Also edited to fix link to Mythusmage---Teflon]
Good and Evil News believes the judiciary will be the key lever of power for decades to come---Grant.
Budman doesn't like the choices; war is hell, after all---Sherman.
View from A Height finds a precedent in former GOP House Speaker and master tactician Thomas Reed---Grant.
Carreterus Linnaeas recommends the first strike option---Grant.
Bunker Busting Bunnies advises letting the chips fall where they may, and notes that forcing the MSM to cover this helps the GOP---Grant.
Kyzylkum wants to see the rules changed around cloture votes and a group slate up-or-down vote---Grant.
GrannyHelen at Kos says the GOP must compromise or die, and that the Democrats are simply representing their constituents by obstructing Bush's judicial picks---McClellan.
Matthew Maynard counters that one definition of tyranny is minority rule---Grant.
Opaque Lucidity posits that the best guarantor of the will of the people being honored is to seat judges which will not overturn it arbitrarily---Grant.
Mythusmage says render the Dems irrelevant, and wants a stronger option than Grant---Sherman.
The Mortgage Blog issues a call to arms for the GOP---Grant.
Right Mom points out that Harry Reid is Newt Gingrich minus ideas, and the GOP should welcome the opportunity to expose the Dems' lack of same---Grant.
The Curt Jester is skeptical of Republican intestinal fortitude, but prefers the nuclear option to having Lucy jerk the football away from Charlie Brown yet again---Grant.
Little Red Blog explodes the fallacy of the Senate as co-equal with the President in the arena of judicial appointments, and notes that their historic adoption of filibustering judicial appointees is nothing less than an effort to force the GOP to attain a supermajority where no such requirement previously existed---Grant.
At the Hundredth Meridian notes that to follow Grant's strategy, one must be led by a Grant, as the GOP is not---McClellan.
Taxable Talk sees some sort of compromise between Grant and McClellan in the offing, though hopefully not a Petain---Neither.
Spinning Clay notes that when your enemy is going Lee, you'd be well-advised to go Grant yourself---Grant.
XBIP calls, "Shut it down"---Grant.
Americanian fears that Grant is nonexistent in the GOP Senate ranks---McClellan.
One Clear Call says minority rule is tyranny and going Grant is a no-brainer---Grant.
All right, so some new angles in this batch.
The questions raised this round seem to me to be:
1. Should the Democrats be allowed to filibuster judicial nominees and therefore impose a 60-vote supermajority for advise and consent for them?
2. Will anyone in the GOP Senate leadership have the guts to vigorously oppose the Democrats on this?
3. Will obstruction of Bush judicial appointees help or hurt the Democrats?
To the first question, I think the answer is clearly no. GrannyHelen at Kos tries to advance the claim that Democrats are merely representing their constituents and that the GOP should be forced to pick appointees which Democrats support. That is patent nonsense, for the reasons several bloggers mention---namely majority rule. The objective is to satisfy the majority of Americans, not a rump minority. Moreover, 45% of Americans are not opposed to Bush's judicial nominees, even though 45% of the Senate is in lockstep opposition. This has a lot more to do with party strategy and discipline than it does with representing your average Americans.
Moreover, within each Senator's constituency is a large number of folks who didn't vote for them. How is it that representing a Senate constituency means advancing the cause of a bare majority at best, while the only man to go before the electoral judgment of every single voting American needs to appeal to more than 60%? I think you know the answer.
And if the shoe was on the other foot, you'd hear Kos advocating passionately for "the will of the people" and majoritarian view. It's a weak argument, even if politely put this time.
As for the second question, the history of the Senate GOP hardly warms the heart that our senators will have the backbone to fight Wimpy Harry. That's okay---we'll be their backbone. Arlen Specter received a taste of what is to come if the GOP wavers. We won't let them cave, and neither will Bush.
To whether all this will help or hurt Democrats, I think the answer is it will hurt them. Tom Daschle was tossed out of office for being a liar and a whiner. He gladhanded with Bush whenever he needed to pull the wool over South Dakotans' eyes yet again, then went back and fought like a demon to prevent Bush from doing anything he was elected to do. He's gone now.
If you want a good indication of what the likely outcome is for Senate Democrats, keep a close eye on Hillary Clinton. She's tacking Right to provide some cover for the battles to come. She's not doing that because she wants to---she's the Madame DeFarge of the Democratic Party, after all. She's doing that because her lust for power outweighs her lust for her ideology.
Senators have to be more centrist than House members because their constituents are much more politically diverse. If the Democrats fail to fire up their base into a frenzy over this, they're done.
Moreover, the rules they set now will come back to haunt them in any future Democrat administration. The Republicans are a lot closer to a 60-seat supermajority in the Senate than the Democrats are, after all.
Note also that every blog who wishes well for the GOP advocates a Grant (or Sherman!) approach, even if they think the GOP will go McClellan. That's significant.
The GOP base is strapping on their shields and sharpening their swords. Whether Frist is McClellan or Grant, I guarantee you he will be in the thick of the fray shortly, like it or not.
[Edited to note that it was GrannyHelen at Kos, not Kos, who posed the Democrats-representing-their-constituents argument. Also eliminated the description of Kos as a Democratic party hard-liner, as I have no idea whether such a description would fit GrannyHelen. Thanks to Beldar for commenting on this post, for catching the error, and for thus giving me the opportunity to correct it. My apologies to Kos for the original erroneous attribution. Also edited to fix link to Mythusmage---Teflon]
11 Comments:
This is an excellent rolling summary with great analysis. Your method makes the symposium that much more effective.
I believe the post you linked from dKos was actually made by someone other than the blog's namesake.
3. Will obstruction of Bush judicial appointees help or hurt the Democrats?
***********
Much of this will, unfortunately, depend upon the lack of integrity found in the MSM. The MSM is far more likely to twist the explanation of the rules to favor the democrats, thus making the Republicans appear to be the ones attempting to twarth the Rule of Law.
Therefore, the Republicans, blogs, channels such as FoxNews, Talk Radio are essential to get the truth out. It might be a good move for Republicans to consider TV ads, billboards, etc to explain the situation to the public. We cannot depend on an honest media to do that.
Great catch, Beldar---I've edited the post and credited you for catching my error. Thank you.
Enigma, I think you're spot-on, but one hopes the MSM will be a bit more cautious with the bloggers' and radio hosts on high alert.
I honestly don't know why the President hasn't made a bigger deal about this---his command of the bully pulpit is quite strong and he's got the facts and public opinion on his side here.
Excellent and pithy summaries. You expressed my own position better than I did. Thanks!
You've got the wrong link associated with my Nom de Internet. :)
Yours, Mythusmage.
just saw this so thought I'd respond...
first off, I am an independent. A very liberal, left-leaning independent, but an independent nonetheless. That probably flavors some of my comments.
Specifically, my argument was that every citizen has an inherent right to be represented at the local, state or federal level, and that doing away with the ability of a minority political party to filibuster erodes that inherent right.
But you bring up an interesting point: the "heck, I didn't vote for that b******" constituent. And of course I agree that no single elected representative is automatically a personification of the folks living in his or her district (Joe Lieberman is one of my senators, for instance - 'nuf said).
Constituents still have the right to petition their elected representatives, even if they didn't vote for them and even if that individual holds almost no common ground with the constituent. Individual voters also always have the opportunity on a grass-roots level to engage in political campaigns to unseat that b****** they didn't vote for, which bolsters the inherent right of representation.
That being said, I believe that any elected representative has not just the right, but the duty, to promote the ideas and policies that got them elected in the first place. (As a side note, I've also had the unpleasant experience of being one of Zig Zag Zell's constituents, and I can tell you I felt royally ripped off when Zell got into office and started to backtrack on the stuff he ran on.)
What does all of this have to do with a filibuster? Even minority political parties got there from winning elections through the majority vote of the folks in their district. These folks voted for these elected representatives based on their inherent right to be represented. And through exercizing that right their guy won. Just because their guy happens to belong to a minority party does not mean these people have abrogated their inherent right to be represented. Their political will is heard through their representative, and to limit that representative's right to engage the political process through a filibuster erodes their constituent's inherent right to representation, and also erodes our democratic systems.
I think Americans fundamentally understand this, hence my comment that if the GOP "goes nuclear" over the filibuster and continues to govern with a firm up yours to the Democratic Party, they won't be in power for too much longer. Call it naive, but I don't think the American electorate will put up with that nonsense indefinitely.
Just my $0.02. :-)
Welcome, GrannyHelen.
A couple of points you've raised:
1. The filibuster is not being taken away, just the arbitrary filibustering of judicial nominees, which has not been the tradition or the rule in the Senate. In effect, the Democrats are seeking to require a 60-vote supermajority to appoint judges to the federal bench. That is brand-new. Previously, Republicans and Democrats would kill nominees in committee, which was typically much less than a 60% agreement proposition.
2. How do you respond to the argument that allowing a minority to obstruct the clear will of the majority erodes the rights of the majority to have their will reflected in the legislative bodies? In other words, doesn't allowing the minority in the Senate to simply say "We pick the nominees" not diminish the right of those citizens voting for the majority party and the President to be represented?
3. The Republican majority was built by obstructing Hillary Clinton's attempted takeover of the U.S. healthcare system. It's not obstruction that Americans object to---it's obstructing good people and good ideas. Unless the Democrats can develop some real policy innovations, they're going to come off looking like sore losers.
Thank you for sharing your comments and your reasoning---both are much appreciated.
Hey Teflon -
Thanks for lettin' me have this exchange with you. I tread very lightly on right-leaning blogs, and I think it's really cool when folks from all sides can sit down and have a reasoned chat about stuff. Maybe we can do more of the same later on...?
But for this issue right now...
1. "The filibuster is not being taken away, just the arbitrary filibustering of judicial nominees, which has not been the tradition or the rule in the Senate."
I'm not so sure about that. I'll refer you to the US Senate's write up on a chapter in the tradition of judicial filibusters (excerpting cuz it's long but the whole thing can be found here: http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Filibuster_Derails_Supreme_Court_Appointment.htm)
"October 1, 1968
Filibuster Derails Supreme Court Appointment Justice Abe Fortas
In June 1968, Chief Justice Earl Warren informed President Lyndon Johnson that he planned to retire from the Supreme Court. Concern that Richard Nixon might win the presidency later that year and get to choose his successor dictated Warren's timing.
In the final months of his presidency, Johnson shared Warren's concerns about Nixon and welcomed the opportunity to add his third appointee to the Court. To replace Warren, he nominated Associate Justice Abe Fortas, his longtime confidant. Anticipating Senate concerns about the prospective chief justice's liberal opinions, Johnson simultaneously declared his intention to fill the vacancy created by Fortas' elevation with Appeals Court Judge Homer Thornberry. The president believed that Thornberry, a Texan, would mollify skeptical southern senators...
...Fortas became the first sitting associate justice, nominated for chief justice, to testify at his own confirmation hearing. Those hearings reinforced what some senators already knew about the nominee. As a sitting justice, he regularly attended White House staff meetings; he briefed the president on secret Court deliberations; and, on behalf of the president, he pressured senators who opposed the war in Vietnam. When the Judiciary Committee revealed that Fortas received a privately funded stipend, equivalent to 40 percent of his Court salary, to teach an American University summer course, Dirksen and others withdrew their support. Although the committee recommended confirmation, floor consideration sparked the first filibuster in Senate history on a Supreme Court nomination.
On October 1, 1968, the Senate failed to invoke cloture. Johnson then withdrew the nomination, privately observing that if he had another term, "the Fortas appointment would have been different."
So, it was actually when Republicans were a minority party that the first filibuster against a US Supreme Court Justice occurred. And you know what? I don't have a problem with that. If Republicans want to sit and exchange recipies on the floor of the Senate because they feel a judicial nominee is unacceptable, that's fine by me. We are talking about the third separate and equal branch of government, after all, and a vital check and balance on the powers of the other two branches. Judges are not elected but appointed: as such, filibusters may be necessary to protect the inherent right of the citizen to be represented in their government.
2. "How do you respond to the argument that allowing a minority to obstruct the clear will of the majority erodes the rights of the majority to have their will reflected in the legislative bodies? In other words, doesn't allowing the minority in the Senate to simply say "We pick the nominees" not diminish the right of those citizens voting for the majority party and the President to be represented?"
Well, first off the Senate is not saying "we pick the nominees". The Senate's roll is one of advice and consent, not selection.
I think you have a false premise in your question, specifically that the minority can be "allowed" (or dis-allowed, conversely) from "obstructing the clear role of the majority". Let's get back to that inherent right of the citizen to be represented in his or her government. This inherent right is even more - not less - vital when the folks doing the representing are a minority political party. Especially when dealing with something as important as the third branch of government, the confirmation of specific nominees should as closely as possible reflect the collective will of all citizens, not just the ones fortunate enough to be represented by the party in power. If the party in power is receiving significant push-back from the minority party - as what happened in the case of Abe Fortas - the majority party really has to take a hard look at itself and try to figure out why this is occurring and in our democratic system attempt to find a compromise. If the majority party does not wish to compromise, in my opinion they are not concerned with attempting to have a government that represents the collective will of all citizens. Again, call me naive but I don't think Americans will put up with that for too long.
3. "The Republican majority was built by obstructing Hillary Clinton's attempted takeover of the U.S. healthcare system. It's not obstruction that Americans object to---it's obstructing good people and good ideas. Unless the Democrats can develop some real policy innovations, they're going to come off looking like sore losers."
Wow...you know what I noticed? You just said, "The Republican majority was built by obstructing Hillary Clinton's attempted takeover of the U.S. healthcare system." Let me repeat: by obstructing. Obstructing. Let me just say this again: built by obstructing...
So obstruction is a way for political parties who aren't currently in the majority to gain political power. Hmmm...
Maybe it's through this obstruction that the political party sees the need to institute new ideas and proposals to the political marketplace of ideas. Maybe it's through this dynamic of obstruction that political parties find their core principles and values, and get down to brass tax in communicating these principles and values to the electorate.
Very illuminating comment, and I think this is where the Dems are at right now.
And the pendulum swings back...
No one party stays in power forever. There is an organic part of democracy - call it the "invisible hand of God" - that ensures everyone gets their shot at governing.
My point is: if the dawn has risen on your day in the sun, just remember the sunset isn't that far behind. What you limit the minority party to do today will be your own limitations tomorrow.
BTW - the hour is late for me (the stay-at-home mom lifestyle ain't all champaigne and roses) and gotta go to sleep.
Just so y'all know about my alias: it's a tribute to my great-granny Helen, a lifelong Dem and charming rabble-rouser who was a DNC delegate and who married a union organizer. Always like to tell folks that upfront (although I do enjoy the idea of people picturing me as a little old lady with glasses).
G'night, Teflon, and I'll check in later!
GrannyHelen-
If I recall correctly, Abe Fortas didn't have enough votes on the floor of the Senate to pass a majority vote. I could be mistaken, but I seem to recall hearing somewhere in the current debate that the Democrats' filibuster of TEN Bush nominees who have the votes on the floor to be confirmed is unprecedented.
It amounts to a de facto seizure of the executive power to appoint judicial nominees, as the Democrats have made clear through Charles Schumer's statements that the only way the logjam will be cleared is if the President consults with them prior to appointing nominees---in other words, the minority effectively pickes the nominee.
This is simply unprecedented.
The Democrats have also indicated that they will shut down Senate business if the "nuclear option" is used.
The Constitution is clear on this---it takes a simple majority to confirm nominees.
By creating the requirement for a 60 vote supermajority, it is the Democrats who are ignoring the Constitution and precedent, not the Republicans.
The Republicans were in the minority in the Senate between the Eisenhower years and the first Reagan term, then again sporadically until 2002. Can you find where in that period the GOP filibustered 10 Democrat judicial appointees? Or anyone other than Fortas, who clearly had some issues aside from ideology?
Could the Democratic Party possibly appear less democratic than they do when obstructing the majority or denouncing the Bush Administration's attempts to spread freedom globally?
As for the tactic of obstructionism, it simply doesn't work unless your party has ideas to offer, such as Gingrich did with The Contract With America.
The Democrats, in addition to losing their electoral advantage at the federal, and state levels, lost a Speaker of the House and a Senate Minority Leader at the polls---a rare occurrence indeed. I'm all for the Dems digging in their heels and looking for all the world like a Banana Republic dictator unaware that he no longer wields power. It's simply awful political strategy, however.
Thanks, GrannyHelen, for taking the time to read and share your thoughts herein. As our guest, I'll leave the final word on our exchange to you.
(Thanks for sharing the story of your nom de blog as well---it's a unique and wonderful way to remember so important a person).
Post a Comment
<< Home