Filibusters killed anti-lynching bills in 1922,1935, and 1938.

[LimpingLib]

http://64.233.179.104/custom?q=cache:FULRbth7D9MJ:www.newyorker.com/printables/talk/050314ta_talk_hertzberg+filibuster+senate+anti-lynching&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Here is a good read

http://64.233.179.104/custom?q=cache:rDphZZq3Xu0J:www.juntosociety.com/government/filibuster.htm+lynching+filibuster&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

I googeled key words so you can quickly find the highlights.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. ...and?

Sorry, but that doesn't kill my support for them.

[LimpingLib]

2. Easy for YOU to say lol

It wasnt your life held up from 1922 till 1965.

Give 43 years of your life while you wait for the minority to shrink so that the majority reaches filibuster proof levels.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. Sorry, but it's still a very important facet of our process.

Sure, it will impede progress sometimes. It will also prevent regression too though. You'd have begged for the filibuster if they overturned all of those anti-lynching laws as soon as Republicans took over again, wouldn't you?

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

4. Exactly. The filibuster in and of itself isn't bad.

It was used for evil results (to oppose civil rights laws by Thurmond and crew), and it can also be used for positive results, to say stop those who would wish to repeal those laws once passed, if the Dixiecrats ever regained the majority.

[LimpingLib]

5. The point is being missed..BADLY.

The most egregious of laws was opposed by the majority even in the peak of our racist past.

It took a long time to pass even minor anti-racist laws (the lynching was MAJOR though) over the veto of the minority.

People didnt even think of passing full civil rights thanks to the 800 foot monster in the Senate:the filibuster.

Id like to think that whatever right wing laws are passed (or court decisions are reached) can result in the majority quickly running to the polls and electing Senators to repeal the right wing implementations.

The filibuster prevents the majority from having any power.

[flpoljunkie]

6. The filibuster keeps the Senate from the "tyranny of Dubya's majority."

It required unanimous consent to bring a judicial nomination to the floor until 1947. That means only one Senator could have stopped a nomination dead in its tracks.

Clinton's appellate nominees--were blocked in committee by various ploys--blue slips, anonymous holds and never allowing them a hearing at all!

[LimpingLib]

8. Martial law was very strong in our past.

Still would be today but I doubt the MAJORITY would stand for it (though the filibuster gives Tyrrany a chance).

Im not talking about judicial issues but the filibuster period.

Im glad we have reformed so that the right wing institutions can be changed more easily.The filibuster is the right wings most deadly weapon. It is the only real nuke in their arsenal.Even it isnt as strong as it once was.

The conservatives are laughing at us defending our worst enemy:the filibuster.

[LimpingLib]

11. Also..about the unanimous consent thing.....

....

The UC simply means that ALL agree on something.If UC isnt reached then a filibuster can be performed.If UC is reached then the filibuster cant be performed.Since anybody who would want to filibuster would never consent or vote for something , its not any big deal.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. No, it prevents the majority from having too much power.

I'm sorry, but there are larger problems in our society if the most minor of laws can't be passed in our Senate and there's no compromise possible (and yes, there WAS a huge problem in our society). YOU are missing the point that without the filibuster, even the most minor of those law could've theoretically been overturned the minute the minority became the majority, and THEN what recourse would there have been? We would have laws flipping back and forth every time parties exchange control of Congress, and that is most certainly not healthy for our Democracy. There MUST be a check by the minority to ensure stability of government and to prevent a tyranny of the majority. Your one example is not good enough. Period.

[LimpingLib]

10. The majority are workers and minoritys today.

Even in the racist 90% white days , the majority leaned toward greater freedoms.

Its the elite that want and NEED the filibuster.

A DEMOcratic party that supports the filibuster would be the biggest oxymoron around in past times.

Now our nation is just one big moron fest.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

34. Sorry, I think you're out of your mind.

I don't think you have any fact to base your opinion on. Sorry.

[LimpingLib]

36. Minoritys=33% Union members=12% None union workers=40%

Minoritys will be about 34%-35% by 2010

Women are about 52%

Union familys=25%

The Senate wasnt designed to protect minoritys. It was designed to protect the elite which has ALWAYS been landowners.

I get tired fo having to explain this over and over again.

Check the threads from the last few months.Search my past posts and check some threads I started.Or just simply study basic history and specificaly the history of democracy from ancient times up to the industrial revolution and beyond.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

37. The Senate was designed to protect states' interests.

Read up on the "Great Compromise".

http://www.cyberlearning-world.com/nhhs/amrev/begin.htm

[LimpingLib]

38. Yea and who elected Senators...who elected those who elected Senators?

Getting closer.

http://64.233.179.104/custom?q=cache:N4GR0Qoql-8J:faculty.sierracollege.edu/ccox/history_17A/12%2520The%2520Constitution.ppt+who+elected+senators+1787+state+legislators+landowners&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Check highlights.

[FrankBooth]

9. Utter BS

I think you are the one who is BADLY missing the point.

[Mondon]

12. I dunno

I remember the filibuster against the Civil Rights Act in 1964 -- what was it, 535 hours? Seemed like a racist minority was holding up justice and progress at the time.

Just sayin'

[LimpingLib]

13. 1965 was simply when the legislative process started.

Dont confuse that with when we could have pulled together a majority of the public in support for civil rights.

I would have been the most Pro-civil liberty guy aound had I been alive in the 20s,30s,40s,50s, etc. YET I wouldnt have dreamed of getting 67 crusty old white men to agree with me.

It would be clear that with a big human rights campaign (with talented Ministers and lots of free legal help)we could easily have gotten 51 votes though and maybe as far back as the 20s.

But the progressives knew to not even bother with the Senate. Remember , we had leaders that threw people in internment camps just for their ethnicity as late as the 40s.

Bob Packwood back around 1970 offered the first ever abortion bill and couldnt get a single co-sponsor.That was in the days where Democrats had a 2-1 majority ,and abortion could have easily gotten 50+ votes.

[Mondon]

14. But there WAS a filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

If 51 Senators were not for it, why was it necessary?

As I said, "filibuster" to me conjures up visions of good ol' boys from the Confederacy keeping black people down long after a majority in the Senate and House would do otherwise.

[LimpingLib]

15. I meant around 1965.

Nobody knew who would support what.The general public can support something 50%+ in 26 states yet it doesnt mean that their views will manifest itself into congressional votes.

Fear of upheaval alone could pehaps prevent congress from acting. Taking on a volatile social issue would be worthless (if you are a career politicican)if you know you need 67 votes.

That the filibuster was able to stop even the most resonable progress (equal rights)for so long speaks volumes.

People act all happy that FINALLY in 1965 civil rights was passed. WE should be asking ourselves what took so long. And dont blame the Southern folk because they never changed. They opposed civil rights all through the 60s even.It was the other states that could have had 50% of their people in support for a long time but the fear of change (and impossibility when the 800 pound Senate monster is factored in)prevented action.

It wasnt in our nations elite "tradition" ya know.

[sonicx]

16. Are you arguing to let them take the filibuster away?

(just so we're clear)

[LimpingLib]

19. Like any liberal or progressive would say-HELL YES!

Clinton had 57 Senators after 1992 (dropped to 56 after Vince Foster blew his brains out and Bentson replaced him, Kay Baily Hutchinson then won a special election with 67% of the vote)and even in that post-Regean highwater level we couldnt pass pro worker or healthcare laws.

I dont think its possible for Democrats to win 60 Senate seats even in the best of circumstances.

See another thread in this section where I present the 20 most conservative states and our lousey chances.

[sonicx]

22. earlier you said...

<<Id like to think that whatever right wing laws are passed (or court decisions are reached) can result in the majority quickly running to the polls and electing Senators to repeal the right wing implementations.>>

Wishful thinking. If RvW is over turned, it will stay that way for 50 years at least. Pro-choicers are not as passionate on the issue as pro-lifers. Anti-gay rights/laws rulings will not anger most people either. GOP can still win.

[ISUGRADIA]

33. Just a correction Bensten never replaced Vince Foster

He was nominated as Treasury Secretary at the beginning of Clinton's term and left the Senate way before the Foster tragedy,

[democracyindanger]

18. "The filibuster prevents the majority from having any power."

Hilarious. You can't make this shit up.

[LimpingLib]

21. It prevents change from happening.

Tell me how Democrats can win 60 seats then get back with me.

A majority has power when conservative Democrats joins the Reublican majority.In all other circumstances, the majority is a paper tiger.

[blondeatlast]

39. I'd like to thinkk so, too. But

damn if reality doesn't stink up my dream world every time.

[LiberalFighter]

40. It's called checks and balances

We aren't a nation of majority rules. It was never set up that way.

That is why we also have a Constitution and Supreme Court.
That is why each state has only 2 Senators instead of proportionate by population.
That is why we have a Congress that requires a bill to be passed by the House and the Senate and then signed by the President.

[Democat]

17. A train in Japan kills 100 people - should all trains be shut down?

:(

[WI_DEM]

20. I agree that the filibuster had been a key tool of the southern bigots

in the Senate, but to do away with it isn't the answer, imo. The filibuster may be all we have to stop Bush or some other president from appointing Judges who will try and undo the gains made in civil rights since the 1960's.

[LimpingLib]

24. Only the right wing has total filibuster ability even on judges.

There are Democrats that are HIGHLY vulnerable if they filibuster judges. The 2 North Dakota Senators have voted for much anti-abortion legislation (health care plans covering abortins, overseas military bases, health exceptions on partial birth bans, etc.)despite being Pro-Choice. They were 2 of the first to go public in support of Ashcroft in early 2001.

Nelson and Pryor are Pro-Life. Landreiu and Johnson will be in deep shit if they filibuster.

We arent guranteed to even be able to filibuster.


The right will easily be able to filibuster on judges in a Democratic Senate.Infact I have heard conservative scholars say that the constitution doent require judges to be replaced.Just keep filibustering forever they used to say.

Judges arent the issue (the filibuster is) but that is the reality.

Roe V Wade being overtunred (I dont think it can be as it would require 3 out of 3 anti-Roe justices to be appointed and many conservative judges support Roe)could actualy invigorate Pro-Choicers and drive turnout through the roof.

[sonicx]

26. "Roe V Wade being overturned...could actualy invigorate Pro-Choicers"

again, wishful thinking. Most americans are pro-choice, however many of them are passive. They are pro-choice, but it isn't that big an issue for them.

Besides, even if your theory is true, RvW is still gone for decades.

BTW, the issue of Bush's awful nominees has more to do than just them being pro-life. The Dems let 205 other Bush judges in. I'm guessing a couple of em are pro-life...

[LimpingLib]

27. Only 2 out of the last 5 GOP Justices turned out to be Anti-Roe

And all were from Reagan and Bush.

Kennedy said (though his position wasnt known at the time)he was once Anti-Roe but by the time the decision was reached by him , he decided it was constitution based on the public being used to it.

Souder was a "home run for conservatives" they said. His decisions proved otherwise.

O Connor was Reagans first appointment and she turned out to be Pro Roe V Wade.

Getting 3 out of 3 isnt possible.

3 out of 5 didnt even happen.

Plus the only justice certain to retire is already Anti-Roe so they wont gain a thing even if they "get it right"

[sonicx]

28. "Getting 3 out of 3 isnt possible."

Actually, I'm guessing this time, everyone (Dems and GOP) will require judges to state their position or at least probe at it. And you know Bush will get judges who have blantantly anti-abortion records. The "pro-life" crowd will yell and scream if he doesn't.

Then the Dems will just cross their fingers and watch all the progress melt.

Also, there's the issue of the Dems possibly not winning the WH in 2008. Early polls are not too great for the soon-to-be Dem candidates.

[LimpingLib]

29. Look at it this way (forget all the emotion for a second)....

...........There are 55 GOP Senators plus 3 Pro-Life Democrats.Then there are Democrats in highly GOP states (3 Dakota Senators plus a Louisiana Senator).

If we can filibuster judges then it will be with 41-43 votes at most.Then all hell could break loose for the Democrats in highly conservative states.

The GOP will easily have a base of 40 conservative Senators forever.


The filibuster is their friend.Even on judges where the center-left has the status quo advantage.

They are stupid for challenging the filibuster PERIOD. But just on the judicial issue (which I admit they dont have the status quo on their side and thus need change which the filibuster could very well prevent), they are even being stupid here because they are already so close to havng 60 votes.Thats before all the arm twisting and political threats.

Remember judical nominations have historicaly been bi-partisan. Clintons nominess passed with 90+ votes.

[sonicx]

30. Yeah, why get emotional about turning control of our bodies over to the...

governement...

Whether or not the GOP is being stupid or not depends on if the Dems can win some elections. Not just 06 and 08, but several elections down the line. I am not so optimistic.

[LimpingLib]

31. Thomas is the youngest. Endless filibusters mean...........

........... that he will be the only one left some day.

It used to be just conservatives who proposed weird filibuster schemes.

Anyway, thats where your emotion will get you.

Chief Justice Thomas.

A nice ring huh?

[sonicx]

32. Maybe we'll have won an election by then...

maybe not.

[LimpingLib]

35. Ahhhh......your confused......LISTEN UP!

If the filibuster rule is still in effect (as it is now,unlimited filibusters)then I gurantee you we Democrats will NEVER nominate another Supreme Court Justice again (I always thought that to begin with but if we set the precident then its a gurantee.


Mind you, I would love to see endless Supreme Court filibusters from both saide but anyway.........

Here is what I predict happens if we stop the filibuster reform.The Cheif Justice Rhenquist retires.The GOP gets a "clean" (so Democratic filibuster)shot at replacing him with another conservative and does so. Even if we try to filibuster then I think it will be defeated.

Result is a 6-3 Pro-Roe court as it is now but with the 2 youngest being anti-Roe.

The next retirement (they dont come up very often anymore , so thats gettig to be a big IF)will be either Stevens or O Connor. Thats where Democrats start to filibuster

That precident (which I LOVE the idea of BTW , its just that opportunitys to reform the filibuster dont come around very often so I STRONGLY support the GOPs reforms though I wish it was on some issue other than judges)will start a chain reaction of filibusters and eventually it will cause justice after justice to retire with no replacements.

Everybody is familiar waith "5-4" decisions. Well get used to "4-3" and "3-2" decisions then "2-1" down the road.

Eventually it will just be a few conservatives.

I think the chaos it would cause would be pretty fascinating.Anyway the GOP has a core consevative base of 40 Senators , and the Democratic filibuster precident (filibustering judges)will make the old conservative filibuster schemes mainstream.

This is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO weird. Right-wingers offering filibuster-reform precidents on the one hand (how weird is that?) then you have liberals (well... by Senate standards)
offering crazy filibuster schemes.

I like both possibilitys honestly.

[onenote]

23. the dilemma

From reading various posts, I think there is general agreement that the way repugs bottled up Clinton's judicial appointments was unfair and undemocratic. But let's say we are recapturing the White House in 2006. Its pretty unlikely that we'll get a filibuster proof majority in the Senate (assuming we even get a majority). If so, what are going to say/propose when the repugs filibuster the new Dem president's judicial nominees?

Looking for serious suggestions....

onenote

[LimpingLib]

25. I LIke the idea of a a 4-4 gridlocked court lol. LOVE IT.

Im that kind of guy.And whats sad is that Im not joking. I love chaos and hope it is painless enough yet chaotic enough to inspire high voter interest to drive turnout up.

However just the idea of major filibuster reform should be enough to get ANY half-assed liberal to support the GOP reforms.

I wish our Senators would just shut up.I am bothered by all the quotes on record by Democrats.Still the GOP might have blundered enough by opening the floodgates of reform. The filibuster has been reformed befor but it was always a Democratic venture.The GOP supporting changes is something never before seen.