Can someone explain this whole filibuster issue to me?

[Dawgs]

How did this get started? Was it the Democrats that threatened to filibuster first, or was it the Republicans threatening to eliminate the filibuster?

Lately I've been hearing Republicans attack Democrats for wanting to filibuster(like it's somehow against the rules), while I've always thought this issue was about the Republicans threatening to change something that guarantee's check's and balances in the government. Am I wrong to think that, by changing the filibuster, they would have complete control to do anything(or most until they can take over the judicial part of the government)?

[soupkitchen]

1. Technically,

the Republicans wouldn't have complete control because the Democrats as they are threatening to do could virtually shut down the Senate by insisting on following all Senate rules to the letter.
For instance, generally any bills that are to read in the chamber are, by unanimous consent, not read aloud, but distributed to the Senators in a written form. Well, the rules of the Senate say that if anyone objects to the unanimous consent the bill must be read aloud.
Remember, some of these bills are longer than any filibuster on record. But it's not only bills we're talking about, there are many many procedural steps that the objection of one Senator can, if not derail, bring to a virtual halt.
So like most things that Republicans propose, ending filibusters might have sounded like a good idea at first, but it really wasn't well thought out. It's enactment could pretty much cripple the Senate for a long, long time.

[in_cog_ni_to]

2. The Democrats have filibustered 10 judges and confirmed

205 and the ones they filibustered were radical RW people. The repukes are trying to say the filibuster was NOT meant to be used to filibuster appointed judges, but was to be used for legislature ONLY. They're pissed that their radical RW judges weren't confirmed, BUT what they don't tell their sheeple supporters is....96 (? I think that's right) of CLINTON'S judges were never voted out of committee to even get to the Senate floor! Bastards. Here's a great explaination by Moveon.org.

Background info on the judicial fight and the "nuclear option"


What is the "nuclear option"?

It's what the Republicans call a parliamentary trick they are threatening to use to eliminate the right to use a "filibuster" to block judicial nominations.

What is the "filibuster"?

It's a right senators have had since 1806. The rules currently allow a group of at least 41 senators to extend debate and delay very controversial votes indefinitely. It is very rarely used, but it encourages the Senate to rule in a fair, bipartisan matter because neither side can be pushed too far – and it protects the rights of the minority.

How would the "nuclear option" eliminate the filibuster?

Legitimately changing the rule that allows a filibuster would require a 2/3 majority vote, and Republican leaders don’t have nearly that much support. Instead, the plan calls for Dick Cheney (who, as Vice President, is also technically the ‘President of the Senate') to simply make a ruling that the filibuster rule no longer applies to judges. If Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist can twist enough arms to get 50 senators to support this "reinterpretation," the filibuster will be history.

Why do Republican leaders want to eliminate the filibuster?

First, it would allow the Republicans to force through the 20 federal judges Democrats rejected last term onto the courts. Seven of these judges were already filibustered once, and the others might be.

But there are also 4 Supreme Court justices over 70, any or all of whom could retire in the next four years. If Republicans abolish the right to filibuster judicial nominees, Bush would be free to stack the Supreme Court with the most right-wing, corporate friendly nominees he can find - and there would be absolutely no incentive for Bush to appoint any justices acceptable to both parties.

Have Democrats abused the filibuster or been “obstructionist”?

No. Democrats filibustered only 10 of the 230 nominees Bush submitted last term. Bush has been more successful at getting appontees onto the bench in his first term than Clinton, or the first President Bush.

Why should I care?

If you are a woman, choice is still the law of the land. If the nuclear option is triggered, President Bush will be in a position to nominate to the Supreme Court judges who believe that Roe v. Wade was the wrong decision. Right-wing Justices have already struck down portions of the Violence Against Women Act.

If you are a disabled person, your rights may be restricted by nominees who believe that the federal government can’t tell the states what to do when it comes to enforcing the laws that protect you.

Even if you have done nothing wrong, your right to privacy when you talk on your cell phone or borrow books from the library may be threatened by a nominee who will support the steady erosion of civil liberties exemplified by the USA PATRIOT Act.

If you want to breathe clean air and drink clean water, you should be concerned about the nomination of judges who believe federal regulations requiring corporate polluters to cut their emissions are excessive or even that the government should have to pay polluters not to poison us.

Who are these judges that would get forced onto the courts?

The judges who President Bush has renominated were blocked by Democrats because they've sided so consistently with powerful special interests over ordinary Americans that they simply could not be given lifetime appointments on the federal bench.

Take a look at just the first five to be reconsidered this term:

Janice Rodgers Brown will most likely be the first judge the Republicans push through using the nuclear option—and its not hard to see why she is so important to them or so dangerous for the American people. Brown is against the most basic protections for workers and the environment that have kept our country strong since the Great Depression.1 She follows a radical judicial philosophy that says courts have a duty to block Congress from interfering with, for example, a corporation's "right" to pollute (if it's profitable), or an employer's "right" to demand unlimited hours at any wage from their employees.2 With judges like Brown flooding the bench, everything from the Clean Water Act to the 40-hour work week could be struck down and eliminated.

William Myers III has never been a judge and spent most of his career as a lobbyist for the cattle and mining industry.3 He has written that all habitat conservation laws are unconstitutional because they interfere with potential profit.4 In 2001, Bush appointed him as the chief lawyer for the Department of the Interior. In that role he continued as a champion of corporate interests, setting his agenda in meetings with former employers he promised not to speak with, and even illegally giving away sacred Native American land to be strip mined.3

Terrence Boyle was a legal aide to Jesse Helms. As a judge, his signature decisions have attempted to circumvent federal laws barring employment discrimination by race, gender, and disability.5 His rulings have been overturned a staggering 120 times by the conservative 4th District Court of Appeals, either due to gross errors in judgment or simple incompetence.6

William Pryor Jr. served as Attorney General of Alabama, where he took money from Phillip Morris, fought against the anti-tobacco lawsuit until it was almost over, and cost the people of Alabama billions in settlement money for their healthcare system as a result.7 He called Roe v. Wade "the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history," and has consistently argued against federal protections for the civil rights of minorities, lesbian and gay couples, women, and the disabled.8

William Haynes III served as the chief legal counsel for the Defense Department, where he championed the legal doctrine that led to the torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. He advised the White House that in a time of war the President should be considered exempt from all international and domestic laws barring torture. Haynes also developed the “enemy combatant” doctrine that allows for United States citizens to be detained without trial, official charges or access to a lawyer -- forever -- at the sole discretion of the President.9

Where can I learn more about this issue?

The New York Times magizine recently covered this issue and some of the nominees in depth. Also see this recent LA Times editorial about Janice Rodgers Brown.

Two other great sources of info are the websites of our allies: People for the American Way and the Alliance for Justice.

There's MORE here:http://www.moveonpac.org/team/0316/info.html