On This Week this week, Senator Leahy said the Senate of course should not filibuster Supreme Court nominees. That's just something they don't do! So George Stephanopolous asked, "You filibustered Justice Alito, didn't you?" Leahy said they didn't. George pressed him on it, and he explained, well, we had a cursory vote we knew was going to fail.
No, the Democrats actually had a filibuster. There was a cloture vote to end the filibuster, and everything. And worse, Leahy voted against cloture (for continuing the filibuster), but now he says "we never filibuster justices of the Supreme Court."
Except when they are Republican nominees, apparently.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at May 05, 2009 04:54 PM | Email ThisIn this case, the cloture motion passed -- so, no filibuster.
John Kerry attempted to organize a filibuster, but that attempt failed because the cloture motion passed.
How, exactly, did Leahy lie? I'm looking for a specific false statement.
Posted by: scottd on May 5, 2009 05:34 PMSince the cloture vote happened on the following Monday, was the filibuster over the weekend? Was the Senate in session that weekend?
Was anyone at the time aware of the filibuster? Alito?, the President? Republican Senators? Democrats?
Just Pudge?
Posted by: BA on May 5, 2009 05:46 PMNo, a filibuster is what causes a cloture vote in the first place. You have a cloture vote to end a filibuster.
The word "filibuster" is never defined in the Senate Rules or American law, but it is defined colloquially in terms of cloture. Why would you need to end debate, to call cloture? Because a filibuster IS occurring. Otherwise it serves no purpose. There was a filibuster, it ultimately (and quickly) failed, and Leahy lied about it.
How, exactly, did Leahy lie? I'm looking for a specific false statement.
"You filibustered Justice Alito, didn't you?" "No."
One word, one lie.
Since the cloture vote happened on the following Monday, was the filibuster over the weekend?
Again: you don't have cloture to prevent a filibuster from happening. You have it to end an existing filibuster. Otherwise, you just end debate without bothering with a cloture vote! That's the whole POINT.
But Leahy TRIED to it. So even if you think a filibuster didn't happen (though it obviously did), he lied when he said that it's something the Senate doesn't do, because he tried to do it himself.
So yes, Leahy did not outright lie, but it is nonetheless disingenuous for the Democrats to pretend to have any moral high ground here. Even if they did not formally filibuster the Alito debate, some certainly would have if they could have. And as a matter of pure fact, it was the Democrats who were the first to ever actually filibuster a nominee for the court of appeals level of the federal justice system in the case of Miguel Estrada, and then they did the same to nine more nominees.
Posted by: ElectricTurtle on May 5, 2009 06:02 PMThe news reports at the time said that the vote might not occur until the following Tuesday, suggesting that it may well have been because Frist wanted to delay the vote because some senators were in Switzerland. My primary source for this might be faulty - it is Fox News - I'm being lazy.
Posted by: BA on May 5, 2009 06:06 PM
I shouldn't have to explain this to you, but trying is not doing.
Yep, including the senile Senator Leahy according to the minutes from his own Vermont senate website's
"more from the floor" area from 2/1/2006
12:50 Senator Leahy Defends His Position on AlitoPosted by: Rick D. on May 5, 2009 06:29 PM
Senator Leahy just came to the Floor to outline once again his reasons for opposing the nomination of Judge Alito. Senator Leahy said that Judge Alito is one of the strongest proponents of the "unitary executive" theory he has ever met, and this is something he finds extremely troubling. Senator Leahy believes it is imperative that the Senate fulfill its Constitutional duty in this process and provide a check against the expansion of executive power. Senator Leahy stressed that the Supreme Court is the ultimate check in our system and the Court's independence is critical to our way of life.
Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate
The ability of Senators to engage in filibusters has a profound and pervasive effect on how the Senate conducts its business on the floor. In the face of a threatened filibuster, for example, the majority leader may decide not to call a bill up for floor consideration, or to defer calling it up if there are other, equally important bills that the Senate can consider and pass without undue delay. Similarly, the prospect of a filibuster can persuade a bill's proponents to accept changes in the bill that they do not support, but that are necessary to prevent an actual filibuster.
This report discusses major aspects of Senate procedure related to filibusters and cloture. The two, however, are not always as closely linked in practice as they are in popular conception. Even when opponents of a measure resort to extended debate or other tactics of delay, supporters may not decide to seek cloture (although this situation seems to have been more common in earlier decades than today). In recent times, conversely, the Senate leadership has increasingly utilized cloture as a routine tool to manage the flow of business, even in the absence of any apparent filibuster.
For these reasons, the presence or absence of cloture attempts cannot be taken as a reliable guide to the presence or absence of a filibuster. Inasmuch as filibustering does not depend on the use of any specific rules, whether a filibuster is present is always a matter of judgment.
Many Democrats did not want to end the debate on Alito and some, like Kennedy and Kerry threatened and worked towards defeating the cloture vote. Leahy voted to keep the debate open - to filibuster.
They did not succeed, but that does not mean they weren't actively trying to extend the debate.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on May 5, 2009 06:57 PMAnd yes, SouthernRoots, cloture can be used even without a filibuster present. However, here, that's clearly not the case: again, if there were no filibuster, they could have just ended debate. They could not because of the filibuster.
That said, yes, as I mentioned before and as you quoted, "filibuster" is not well-defined. But it is pretty darn clear in this case.
But even if someone maintains there wasn't one, Leahy explicitly voted FOR filibuster despite now saying the Senate doesn't do that sort of thing, so he's lying regardless.
Posted by: pudge on May 5, 2009 07:06 PMFOXNews Tuesday, January 31, 2006
"On a 72-25 vote, senators succeeded in passing the 60-vote threshold to PREVENT a filibuster and allow a simple majority vote".
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183204,00.html
It's not well-defined, and you're splitting hairs in quite an absurd way to try for a gotcha moment.
But as much as the Democrats are loudly protesting the idea of a filibuster, I doubt that the Republicans that were whining about it during the Alito hearings are going to practice any self-restraint on their part.
Posted by: demo kid on May 5, 2009 07:27 PMYou show all the tedious literal-mindedness of a precocious fourth grader when it suits your purpose, but you're quite willing to stretch definitions and reinterpret as necessary when things don't work out. In this case, you call Leahy a liar when he says there was no filibuster -- a true statement. When you get called on this, you point out that Leahy wanted a filibuster (maybe true) and even voted in favor of one (definitely true) -- but none of that negates his statement that "we never filibuster". To do that, you would have to show that they did filibuster -- not that they tried to or wanted to.
Now, I'll agree that this is a tiresome argument. When Republicans were in power, they frequently shrieked about how awful it was that anyone would even consider a filibuster over judicial nominees. Now that they are the ever-shrinking minority, they think it's fine and some Democrats think it's a bad idea. If you want to rail at the hyprocrisy from both sides, be my guest -- I won't argue.
But that's not what you posted. You said Leahy lied -- and you were wrong. Even your compatriots on this site seem to understand that -- so just man up and admit it.
Posted by: scottd on May 5, 2009 07:32 PMI think given your past scholarship you must be lying.
Too bad, because you could have simply made your point about Leahy by pointing out that he supported trying to filibuster Alito's confirmation.
Posted by: BA on May 5, 2009 07:32 PMIt is all wasted time. In the end, the President nearly always gets his nominee.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 5, 2009 07:35 PMHe simply cannot help himself, it's a genetic defect.
cloture - The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes.
List of filibuster supporters
It never fails to leave me breathless when someone has the chutzpa to characterize scores of millions of their fellow human beings with such a broad, derogatory comment.
There are a lot of "liberals" out here these days Danno, and we vote; as demonstrated in the last election
Pudge is an idiot,
Many liberals are the same,
thanks for the enlightenment,
couldn't agree with you more!
Posted by: Unkl Witz on May 5, 2009 09:03 PMYou go ahead and keep thinking Democrats are "stoopid" and we'll just keep winning elections - fine with me.
Shrug, believe what you want, but the bottom line is still that Leahy himself tried to filibuster Alito, and now he lies, saying that the Senate doesn't do that sort of thing.
Please, defend what Leahy said. Go ahead. Tell me he wasn't lying. Tell me he didn't really MEAN to try to filibuster Alito, that it was all for show and doesn't count. Go ahead.
It's hilarious the length y'all will go to cover up what actually happened: the Democrats tried to block Alito with a filibuster, and now the Democrats are trying to preemptively turn the public against the Republicans doing that to Obama's nominee by lying to the public and saying that this is something the Senate just doesn't do.
Not that this is surprising: those very same Democrats also tried to abolish the filibuster when Clinton was in office. Filibuster is a good thing when they don't control anything, but bad when they are in control. That's how Leahy rolls.
scottd: then call anyone who doesn't agree with your definition a liar
scottd, you're lying by saying I ever did that. The only one I called a liar was Leahy (who obviously and clearly did lie) ... until now, since you lied by saying I called anyone else a liar.
Living or dead, legal or illegal, they vote.
Posted by: pbj on May 6, 2009 01:19 AMHappy "cinco de cuatro" two days late. I guess the president should have consulted with his new portugese water dog Bo before winging his spanish comprehension without the teleprompter present. Had this been Bush, it would be playing on a loop on the cable and network news programs declaring "See how stupid he is?".
Posted by: Rick D. on May 6, 2009 06:00 AMLook, there is nothing shameful in admitting you are wrong. And you should do that here.
Leahy is no friend of conservatives, but he didn't lie in this case. Your argument is beyond being a stretch. It is a fabrication.
Some 25 of the Democrats may have wanted a filibuster, but they were unable to produce the votes to start one.
Your reference to Stephanpolous is unsupported (no citation) and who the hell cares what he says?
Your citation to democrats.com is beyond a stretch. Those idiots don't know what they are talking about, and the site is a liberal yahoo blog post.
Stop bobbing and weaving. Admit you made a mistake, and move on.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 6, 2009 06:30 AMWhy? No one has given any reason for me to do so.
Leahy is no friend of conservatives, but he didn't lie in this case.
Oh, right. So when he said the Senate doesn't filibuster Supreme Court nominees, despite the fact that with Alito, he voted to sustain a filibuster ... that was not a lie.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Some 25 of the Democrats may have wanted a filibuster, but they were unable to produce the votes to start one.
You don't need any votes to start a filibuster. Have you never seen Mr. Smith Goes to Washington?
Your reference to Stephanpolous is unsupported (no citation)
Did you not read my post? At all? It's right there. And he said it twice, actually.
Background checks and the like are okay. If nothing is found, then go ahead.
Obama's nominees are going to likely come from the left side of the retiring liberal Supremes. Let him have his day.
Except, that Sotmayor seems like a strange duck and could be turned down for other reasons.
I would also vote for any well-qualified nominee who actually believes in upholding the law, rather than making it. My question to them:
Let us assume that the Congress passed, and the President signed, a law that allowed gender discrimination in private businesses on the third Thursday of every month. On this day, women could have reduced benefits, including salary, merely because they are female. This law was challenged and made its way to the Supreme Court. As a Supreme Court Justice, would you overturn this law?
Of course, there's nothing illegal or unconstitutional about such an idiotic law. So it must be upheld.
If they would overturn it, then I would vote against them. Which means I would almost surely vote against every Obama nominee.
As for this future nominee, I'm sure it will be someone far left and that person should get an up or down vote of the full Senate. Just like every nominee should. Hopefully, some conservatives in the Senate will ask some tough questions at least.
I could care less about the favorite Democrat question of right to privacy, which is a smoke screen for the litmus test of 'do you support abortion?', which of course this nominee will. I'd like to hear how this nominee would have decided two cases - Heller and Kelo. That will expose everything I need to know about how they feel about gun and property rights. My guess is that this nominee will side with the existing liberals on the court, who voted to eviscerate both of these rights.
Posted by: Palouse on May 6, 2009 08:23 AMShe is certainly a nut, which is perfectly consistent with someone that Obama is likely to nominate because he agrees with her whacked out world view that justices should use "their feelings" when interpreting the Constitution. Also, you can find video of her saying the following if you put her name in the youtube site:
"All of the legal defense funds out there-- they're looking for people with court of appeals experience. Because court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law. [Laughs] I know. I know. [Laughter] I'm not promoting it, I'm not advocating it, I'm...y'know."
I don't know that you will find out much about Heller or Kelo, since those cases may come up again. Judicial nominees regularly refuse to answer such questions. That's why I proposed a completely unrealistic scenario in my question.
Posted by: pudge on May 6, 2009 08:42 AMNow, if they say they like Kelo but refuse comment on Heller, that is instructive too. :-)
Posted by: pudge on May 6, 2009 08:45 AMFor example Obama on transparency. When it's Bush terror memos and sensitive pictures of the caskets of dead soldiers, by all means, release them ASAP. It's patriotic, and important for accountability.
But when it's VC-25A PR photos that caused a scare in NYC, and might damage Obama in some small way, well then they are best kept top secret.
It's laughable to think that anyone would try and defend these double standards.
Pelosi was one of the Reps that sat in on CIA briefings for waterboarding effectiveness in the early 2000s, but once that became objectionable and a political tool vis a vis Bush and Co., well then she's never heard of or sanctioned such a horrific torture.
We see this day after day in media coverage as well. If it's a protest on the left, even one with violence and damage to property, well, then it is just legitimate frustration with the Bush "regime." And on the right, a relatively benign protest with khaki clad professionals taking time off of work, is derided as a bunch of Tim McVeigh loving insane rightwingers pepping for their latest lynching.
You can't make this stuff up. The final arbiters will be the middle of the road people who don't pay much attention to politics, but who will ask themselves if Obama has gotten them to a better place after trillions in new debt and nationalization of many private entities. We shall see.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 6, 2009 09:18 AMThere are two really disgusting things about this: One, it's such an obvious handoff to powerful education unions, and a cynical political ploy as the video shows. But far worse is the obvious burial of this story by much of the media. This should have been something we saw from NPR. But instead, it's something that has to come increasingly from Reason TV or other blog based new media, some of it even on the left.
This is the kind of thing that will resonate with the rest of Americans when they make their decisions in 2010 and 2012. No debate, no transparency, and the summary execution of even efficient, successful programs. The exact opposite of the pledges of accountability, openness, and bipartisanship that Obama sold so well in the debates and speeches of his campaign.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 6, 2009 09:49 AMSatomayor certainly doesn't understand the way the Constitution is written. That is, if what is being written is true.
I could easily vote (at least what I am hearing) for Erwin Cherwinsky of the Hugh Hewitt show as a liberal attorney. His arguments on the show are legal in nature, though I disagree with a vengeance on his outcomes. They are reasoned arguments though. Kind of a Roberts/Alito except on the other side.
Posted by: swatter on May 6, 2009 10:00 AMSo if one Senator is continuing debate, that amounts to a filibuster? No pudge, you are wrong. A cloture motion ends debate and prevents a filibuster.
The point is that if the cloture motion had failed then and only then would that be a filibuster. Or, more appropriately, if the cloture motion was never brought to vote because leadership wasn't confident that it would pass.
Simplification, simplification, that's the name of the game.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 6, 2009 10:36 AMSo if one Senator is continuing debate, that amounts to a filibuster?
Nope. But if he is doing it to prevent the Senate from taking action ... then yes, it is. Which is what happened.
The point is that if the cloture motion had failed then and only then would that be a filibuster.
Absolutely false. There is no truth to that claim whatsoever.
In fact, Leahy said, "There was a cursory vote that everybody knew would not succeed on the motion to proceed." If people knew that cloture would fail, it could be that Leahy and others would have switched sides to preserve the tradition of not filibustering Court nominees. We do not know for certain, but what we do know is that Altio was not filibustered and that Leahy's statement that 'Court nominees are not filibustered' is completely accurate.
Your post, on the other hand, is misleading and wrong. Great sources, btw. I have a Google Group you can quote next time. Fool.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 6, 2009 10:47 AMSo one Senator can cause a filibuster even if there are 99 votes for cloture? That is absolutely absurd.
That is not what anyone would describe as a filibuster.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 6, 2009 10:52 AMIn any case, if you want to see how the two sides approach confirmations of the SCOTUS nominees, simply look at the votes of Reagan's, H.W. Bush's, and W. Bush's nominees. And then look at the votes of Clinton's.
And then tell me who the obstructionists are?
Personally, I'd hope the GOP grows a pair this time and 'Bork' whomever is nominated.
Posted by: jimg on May 6, 2009 10:59 AMFilibustering is not part of senate rules, but unlimited debate is.
True.
Once that unlimited debate is invoked and either cloture fails or leadership knows that cloture won't pass, you have a filibuster.
True. Also, before that point, unlimited debate to forestall Senate action is a filibuster.
what we do know is that Altio was not filibustered
False.
Leahy's statement that 'Court nominees are not filibustered' is completely accurate.
False.
Your post, on the other hand, is misleading and wrong.
False.
So one Senator can cause a filibuster even if there are 99 votes for cloture?
True.
That is absolutely absurd.
False.
What is absurd, however, is that you believe filibusters did not come into existence until cloture did. Cloture came into existence IN RESPONSE TO the use of the filibuster. Senate Rule 22. 1917. It used to be that a filibuster could not be stopped. Less than 100 years ago, that changed. What did not change is the idea that you have to now have cloture in order to call something a filibuster.
Once again, Jensen, you just don't know what you are talking about.
Pudge, the meaning of filibuster has changed over the years, you are correct. (I know you're comfortable more comfortable with 200 years ago than the realities of today, so maybe you shouldn't speak with such authority about policy and law.)
Now, that is not the standard that justices should face -- I agree with Leahy on that point. You need 50 votes to confirm a justice, not 60, and if a cloture vote for someone like Alito would have failed, then democrats should have switched their votes and allowed for an up-or-down vote. But it wouldn't have come to that point and we all know it. (And if it did, Alito would still have been confirmed: nuclear option.)
Cloture failed 72-24, Alito passed with 58-42. That is a sizable difference of senators who voted to invoke cloture. That is nothing near what I'd call a filibuster. It was a meaningless roll call to earn curry with supporters. The second it crossed a threshold you would have seen votes switch. They would not have filibuster a Supreme Court nominees, and Republicans won't do it this time.
And if it cloture needs to be invoked, I won't call that a filibuster. And I won't describe the 60 votes required to get anything through senate a filibuster either because it completely removes the meaning from the word.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 6, 2009 11:15 AMSo you agree with Leahy NOW, but disagree with him when Alito was nominated.
It was a meaningless roll call to earn curry with supporters.
He voted to sustain a filibuster, but didn't MEAN it. Riiiiiight.
No one's buying it.
Posted by: pudge on May 6, 2009 11:20 AMVotes like this are rated by interest groups, for example. So to improve your standing with some women's right group, you toss a meaningless vote against Altio, get some more money for re-election and don't get burnt by it. Is it cynical and stupid? Yes, and both sides do it with religious frequency.
Judging from the comments here, it seems no one buys your incorrect assertion contained in the original post. And this is a conservative site? "No one's buying it," you say?
Posted by: John Jensen on May 6, 2009 11:37 AMHe voted to do something he says the Senate doesn't do.
I don't care what his motives were. It's his vote, and he cannot renounce it or wiggle out of it.
His vote is his word, his voice, his representation of his constituents people. You're basically telling us that we cannot accept Leahy's word when he gives it.
No doubt that's true, but he still lied.
Judging from the comments here, it seems no one buys your incorrect assertion contained in the original post.
As usual: false.
Are we going to hear anything from the left and their media about a "litmus test" for Obama's new Court nominee regarding thier views on abortion?
Of course we won't.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 6, 2009 11:45 AMCongressional Research Service report prepared for the Senate.
Are you going to correct your post or not?
I don't care what his motives were.
Sorry, the world has nuance. It'd be easier if it didn't.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 6, 2009 12:13 PM"For these reasons, the presence or absence of cloture attempts cannot be taken
as a reliable guide to the presence or absence of a filibuster. Inasmuch as
filibustering does not depend on the use of any specific rules, whether a filibuster is
present is always a matter of judgment.
Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate, Report for Congress.
It seems like most commenters here don't don't trust your judgment on the issue.
How was the Alito nomination delayed? And will you please correct your OP?
Posted by: John Jensen on May 6, 2009 12:23 PMIt seems to me that if there was a filibuster, it had to start at some point. When was that?
Posted by: scottd on May 6, 2009 12:25 PMIt would be erroneous to imply that I did that.
Are you going to correct your post or not?
You have not identified any error.
Sorry, the world has nuance.
Shrug. All you're doing is saying he lied when he voted to sustain a filibuster, instead of lying when he said the Senate doesn't do that. No better, pal.
whether a filibuster is present is always a matter of judgment.
So you admit that you were wrong when you several times told me that my claim was incorrect. Thank you for being so gracious.
It seems like most commenters here don't don't trust your judgment on the issue.
I never asked anyone to trust my judgment. Why should I want them to?
How was the Alito nomination delayed?
By the Democrats forcing a cloture vote.
And will you please correct your OP?
There's nothing to correct. Your own quote even said so.
scottd: at what point did normal debate regarding Alito's nomination end and a filubster begin?
A fine question. It is when the Democrats (led by John Kerry) indicated they would disallow the nomination from proceeding without a cloture vote. At that point, they COULD NOT proceed without one, and it WAS a filibuster.
The specific event was Harry Reid objecting to a scheduling of the confirmation vote. Yes, that simple act does not a filibuster make; however, it is the INTENT of the act that is at issue. The Democrats had made clear they intended to prevent the vote on Alito from occurring. This objection to the scheduling of the vote was intended to do just that.
If they objected merely because they actually had more to say and were not trying to prevent a vote, that would not be a filibuster. But that is not what happened, so yes, it was a filibuster, in my judgment, and in that of many other people on both sides of the aisle and in the news media.
Contemporary sources (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012601955.html) note that there were "calls" for a filibuster. The Washington Post wrote: If Alito supporters failed to get the 60 votes, a filibuster officially would begin and debate would continue.
Mitch McConnell, said at the time "to threaten a filibuster, even after it is crystal clear that Democrats don't have the necessary votes to sustain their obstruction." He does not conflate temporary obstruction with a filibuster, while you continue to.
Even FOX News wrote: On a 72-25 vote, senators succeeded in passing the 60-vote threshold to prevent a filibuster and allow a simple majority vote Tuesday.
I could not find a single media source that said a filibuster had or was occurring. Do you want to provide evidence behind your unproven assertion that many other people on both sides of the aisle and in the news media believe a filibuster took place? How about contemporary?
You were presenting opinion as fact, par for the course with your writing. You used cloture as your evidence, and I systematically disproved the assertion that cloture means a filibuster is occuring. Since you'll call me a liar, from earlier in the thread: you don't have cloture to prevent a filibuster from happening. You have it to end an existing filibuster.
In fact, that is not true -- I presented two papers detailing that fact. Cloture and filibuster are not necessarily related. You are now backtracking, saying that scottd asked the right question. Scott did ask a great question, but your arrogance prevents you from admitting a mistake. You conflated cloture with the filibuster incorrectly. Again, you will accuse me of lying, You have [cloture] to end an existing filibuster.
Now, to keep things in the present: I simply would not care if cloture is required for Obama's court nominee. Cloture is standard for everything nowadays, which is something we agree is unfortunate. But a failed cloture vote, the perception of it, or other delaying tactics that go on for more than a few days (what I would call a filibuster) of a Supreme Court nominee or a nominee to the Cabinet is a completely unacceptable.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 6, 2009 02:58 PMYou need to state citing stuff besides your memory. Reid was never in favor of a filibuster or anything approaching it. If he objected to the scheduling to invoke cloture, it would only be used to have the vote go forward on Tuesday as scheduled. In other words, to prevent delay and obstruction.
Preventing delay and obstruction is the opposite of a filibuster. And your liberal use of the phrase "The Democrats" is out-of-touch with both reality and the roll call you linked to in your OP.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 6, 2009 03:07 PMYou should correct your OP to note that in your "judgment" a filibuster happened. This is not fact.
In my judgment, it is a fact.
The Washington Post wrote: If Alito supporters failed to get the 60 votes, a filibuster officially would begin and debate would continue.
You're quoting something you disagree with as proof that you're right? Wow, that's a neat trick.
Do you want to provide evidence behind your unproven assertion that many other people on both sides of the aisle and in the news media believe a filibuster took place?
Um. I did, right in the original post. Come on, keep up.
You used cloture as your evidence
False. I did no such thing. I used cloture as PART of the evidence. My evidence was cloture + circumstances. What I said was in this particular context.
I systematically disproved the assertion that cloture means a filibuster is occuring
Yes, way to beat that straw man!
You are now backtracking, saying that scottd asked the right question.
False. I am not backtracking, and I said no such thing to scottd.
Scott did ask a great question, but your arrogance prevents you from admitting a mistake.
No one has identified any mistake.
You conflated cloture with the filibuster
No, I didn't.
Reid was never in favor of a filibuster or anything approaching it.
False. The proof is in that he started the filibuster process with his objection, and voted to sustain it.
If he objected to the scheduling to invoke cloture, it would only be used to have the vote go forward on Tuesday as scheduled.
Riiiiight. Pull the other one.
In other words, to prevent delay and obstruction.
What color is the sky in your world? You are actually making the argument that forcing a cloture vote is PREVENTING delay and obstruction.
And your liberal use of the phrase "The Democrats" is out-of-touch with both reality and the roll call you linked to in your OP.
False.
"On a 72-25 vote, senators succeeded in passing the 60-vote threshold to PREVENT a filibuster and allow a simple majority vote".
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183204,00.html
stubborn like a ______.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 6, 2009 03:40 PMThe quote is evidence that you are wrong: you claimed much of the media agreed that a filibuster was occurring. You can't provide any evidence of a contemporary report calling the events a filibuster.
Your source in the OP is a question. Not a claim, not a media report, it was a question that his follow-up clarified. Stephanopoulos' very next statement, after his question, was: STEPHANOPOULOS: Democrats did try to filibuster Justice Alito, if I remember correctly, sir. Carl Levin, on the third page of the transcript says, they did want to filibuster Alito.
You should correct your post to note that the occurrence of a filibuster your opinion which isn't supported by contemporary media or major political figures.
You are refusing to back up your claims with sources, and I am destroying your arguments as you present them. Your arguments are weak, and they are changing.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 6, 2009 03:56 PMMike is right, the problem here isn't the media's poor coverage of what a filibuster is -- it's your lack of humility.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 6, 2009 04:01 PMJensen: The quote is evidence that you are wrong
No, it's not. In any way. And again: YOU DISAGREE with the quote.
You can't provide any evidence of a contemporary report calling the events a filibuster.
Please don't be so dishonest. You know quite well that you are adding criteria to my claim in order to try to disprove my claim.
You should correct your post to note that the occurrence of a filibuster your opinion which isn't supported by contemporary media or major political figures.
That would be a lie. Which is OK for you, but not for me.
You are refusing to back up your claims with sources
Just as that is a lie.
I am destroying your arguments as you present them
And that.
Your arguments are weak, and they are changing.
And that.
You said that many other people on both sides of the aisle and in the news media agree with you. Can you cite sources? Sure, contemporary or not. (And I'm not talking about democrats.com.)
Posted by: John Jensen on May 6, 2009 04:18 PMFalse.
You said that many other people on both sides of the aisle and in the news media agree with you. Can you cite sources?
George Stephanopoulos.
Again, this is another time in this thread where you didn't know what cloture or filibuster meant. Humility.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 6, 2009 04:23 PMFalse. As usual you just invent things to suit your purposes.
Mike is right, the problem here isn't the media's poor coverage of what a filibuster is -- it's your lack of humility.
Shrug. You have yet to demonstrate I said anything wrong.
I am far better at humility than you are at context.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You filibustered Justice Alito, didn't you?
LEAHY: No. We don't filibuster for either side, and so we have -- there's going to be a vote, up or down. I fully expect that. I think the last time there was a kind of a successful filibuster was Abe Fortas, and that was a Democratic...
(CROSSTALK)
STEPHANOPOULOS: Democrats did try to filibuster Justice Alito, if I remember correctly, sir.
You're still refusing to cite anything.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 6, 2009 04:39 PMOne person who doesn't support your position is hardly many other people do do.
Where are these many other citations? Do you have any evidence beyond truncating the quotes of George Stephanopoulos that there was a filibuster of Alito?
Posted by: John Jensen on May 6, 2009 04:47 PMNo, I am not.
You're still refusing to cite anything.
No, I am not.
One person who doesn't support your position is hardly many other people do do.
And I provided more than one.
It's a test of popularity at best.
If there had been a filibuster we know the end moment as the cloture vote. When was the beginning moment?
Posted by: BA on May 6, 2009 05:27 PMLEAHY: No. We don't filibuster for either side, and so we have -- there's going to be a vote, up or down. I fully expect that. I think the last time there was a kind of a successful filibuster was Abe Fortas, and that was a Democratic...
(CROSSTALK)
STEPHANOPOULOS: Democrats did try to filibuster Justice Alito, if I remember correctly, sir.
What are you confused about, pudge?
Posted by: John Jensen on May 6, 2009 05:31 PMBut it was a nice debate and banter.
JJ: good effort.
Posted by: Arbitor on May 6, 2009 06:46 PMStatement of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.),
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee,
On the Nomination of David Ogden to be Deputy Attorney General
March 11, 2009
Even after abandoning their the ill-conceived filibuster of President Obama's nomination of David Ogden to be Deputy Attorney General, we still hear Republican Senators making scurrilous attacks against Mr. Ogden launched by some on the extreme right.
Full statement here entitled 'Reject The Partisan Tactics And Double Standards'...straight from the horses mouth.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 6, 2009 09:29 PMAbsolutely nothing.
Posted by: pudge on May 6, 2009 10:09 PMSTEPHANOPOULOS: Democrats did try to filibuster Justice Alito, if I remember correctly, sir.
And since when does "citing" one media figure prove that many others agree with your delusional interpretation of events?
In this thread you've linked to a generic activist blog and a 'This Week' transcript. I've cited congressional research papers, several media outlets, Sen. Hatch (R), Sen. McConnell (R), and even your own 'This Week' transcript which doesn't agree with you.
Further, you had repeatedly conflated "cloture" with "filibuster" in this thread as I have illustrated in earlier comments.
By ignoring requests to cite additional sources you are effectively taking your ball and going home. This thread reminds us all of your history: you simply have a problem admitting when you are wrong.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 7, 2009 12:23 AMIt's really odd how you think that if you DO something, that means you DID NOT try to do it.
It's really odd how you think that "many" people all must be "media figures."
It's really odd how you keep saying I got cloture wrong, when the only evidence you have is to take me out of context.
And no, you linked to no "congressional research papers" or congress people that disagree with me in any way.
Your argument is getting pettier. There is a big difference between trying and doing. You're claim is that "doing" happened
Stephanopoulos said: Democrats did try to filibuster Justice Alito, if I remember correctly, sir. Did try to, not did.
The "This Week" transcript is pretty weak evidence for your case. You should find another source to cite on this matter.
You argument is: if A then B => if B then A where A is do, B is try. That is a logical fallacy I learned is incorrect in 9th grade geometry class. Were you home schooled?
It's really odd how you think that "many" people all must be "media figures."
Is English your native language? That's you, not me: it was a filibuster, in my judgment, and in that of many other people on both sides of the aisle and in the news media. You have yet to back up this assertion with any evidence.
It's really odd how you keep saying I got cloture wrong, when the only evidence you have is to take me out of context.
False. Readers can scroll up to find full context and realize that you didn't know what you were talking about until commenters corrected you.
And no, you linked to no "congressional research papers" or congress people that disagree with me in any way.
I linked to two reports discussing cloture. One is specifically about nominees and doesn't use the word filibuster relating to Alito.
I quoted, and linked to the quotes, Sen. Hatch and McConnell both saying that filibusters were attempted. Neither said they occurred.
Are you arguing that a filibuster occurred, but no one wants to say it and they only want to say it was attempted? It sounds like that is your argument.
Maybe you should stop posting and start reading.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 7, 2009 01:10 AMWere you home schooled?
I know you weren't, because if you were, you would know that "do" and "try" are not mutually exclusive. Insisting that they are is foolish.
It's funny how liberals like to decry homeschooling most when they are wrong about something, like a few weeks ago when tensor insisted that only a HOME-schooled kid would think that the Boston Tea Party was a reaction to an act that CUT taxes. He was unknowingly right: most public school kids would not know that fact.
Readers can scroll up to find full context
Yep. :-) And they will find that I was discussing cloture within this specific context.
I linked to two reports discussing cloture.
And neither disagreed with me in any way.
For all practical purposes, all that needs to happen to start a filibuster is that someone threatens it. This threat may be serious or not, but it now raises the bar for the discussion to include cloture.
I used to think a filibuster was the Jimmy Stewart version of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. When the Dems filibustered some of Bush's nominees, I didn't see any of the drama as Stewart showed. All I saw was the "threat" that now set the stage for cloture votes. The nominees were filibustered before any cloture vote was taken. When cloture wasn't invoked, the filibusters continued.
A filibuster can occur without first failing cloture. A filibuster is ended if cloture is passed.
All a filibuster is, is a way of using rules, processes, tricks, and dirty tricks to extend debate and delay a vote on the topic - to ty to talk it to death. Sometimes, the extension is used to rile up the base and have them burn the phone lines to sway support.
If Leahy wasn't technically filibustering Alito, he definitely voted to support a filibuster when he voted against cloture. Therefore saying that they don't do that is a fabrication.
Keep up the good fight Henry.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on May 7, 2009 09:01 AMPudge: If something is attempted that is not evidence that it occurred. I highlighted that logical fallacy already.
If I "try to run a marathon," it doesn't mean I "did run a marathon." Indeed, if I "did" run a marathon then of course I had tried to (and succeeded) -- but news reports would that I "ran" not "attempted to run." Of course, you're not this dense; you're being absurd but everyone notices that you aren't addressing my substance. Like this:
Alito's so-called "filibuster" began on Friday and cloture was invoked, the Senate went on a lovely weekend break, the cloture motion sailed through on Monday, and Alito was confirmed on Tuesday morning. Cloture allows for 30 hours of debate once passed and democrats did not eat up those 30 hours to delay Alito's confirmation. People know a filibuster when they see it and this was no filibuster.
You have been unable or unwilling to produce additional sources to back up your claim that many other politicians and media sources identified a filibuster. Stephonopolous said democrats attempted a filibuster, citing democrats.com is like citing a Geocities page, the contemporary media sources didn't call it a filibuster, and a cloture vote doesn't imply that a filibuster is occurring. If you have evidence, then you have been unwilling to repeat it in recent posts.
Let's recap who didn't know that there was a filibuster: The media, Bush, Alito, the Senate, and the vast majority of people following the story closely in late-Winter 2006. So who did know about this alleged filibuster and when did they know it?
Uour new game is to delay and withhold and write pity posts that say nothing. It seems to me that you no longer have an interest in being intellectually honest. But why would you answer any of the other substantial points I'm presenting? Please, quote a single sentence of little substance (and say something like "False" or "Wrong"), continue to provide no additional evidence or even repeat past evidence, and go ahead associate me with every other progressive because we're all dumb. All those smart guys on the right have never said something historically inaccurate and demonstrably wrong like, "the Democrats actually had a filibuster."
Posted by: John Jensen on May 7, 2009 12:04 PMThe non-partisan Congressional Research Service writes: It would be erroneous, however, to assume that cases in which cloture is sought are the same as those in which a filibuster occurs. Cloture may be sought when no filibuster is taking place (...) Leaders of the majority party, or other supporters, may move for cloture even when opponents do not assert that they are attempting a filibuster, or when no extended debate or delaying actions have actually occurred.
Again:
Pudge: No, a filibuster is what causes a cloture vote in the first place.
CRS: It would be erroneous, however, to assume that cases in which cloture is sought are the same as those in which a filibuster occurs.
Again:
Pudge: A filibuster is what causes a cloture vote.
CRS: It would be erroneous to assume that when cloture is sought, then a filibuster is occurring.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 7, 2009 12:14 PMPudge: If something is attempted that is not evidence that it occurred. I highlighted that logical fallacy already.
Except that I never made this argument. But YOU DID make the argument that if you try something, it means you didn't do it. This irrational belief of yours -- that if you try something, it means you didn't do it -- was the sole basis for your claim that George Stephanopolous "does not believe a filibuster happened."
Cloture allows for 30 hours of debate once passed and democrats did not eat up those 30 hours to delay Alito's confirmation.
You're arguing against yourself: if Reid's sole goal was, as you say, to have the vote on Tuesday, then he would have been in favor of cloture. Instead, he voted against it, because he wanted to prevent a vote on Tuesday (or any other day). Oops!
this was no filibuster
Funny, you previously said this was a judgment call. Now you're asserting there was no filibuster, which is just as incorrect -- according to you -- as my saying there was one.
Worse, you yourself have admitted that it is irrelevant what other people think, and yet you spend almost all your time here trying to prove that very irrelevant thing.
It's just bizarre.
Again: you ignore the context. Are you allergic to context? That would explain a lot.
The CRS does not disagree with me in any way: they are speaking generally, and I am talking specifically about cases where the minority is attempting to prevent a vote, which everyone -- except you -- concedes this was.
What SouthernRoots said a few posts up is on the money.
Here's another that I hope does work:
Cloture for Judicial Nominations
A filibuster is a matter of intent; any course of action by opponents of a matter may be a filibuster if it is undertaken with the purpose of blocking or delaying a vote. Yet any of the procedural actions that might be used to delay or block a vote might also be used for other purposes. As a result, filibusters cannot simply be identified by explicit or uniform criteria, and there is no commonly accepted set of criteria for doing so. Instead, determining whether a filibuster is occurring in any specific case typically requires a degree of subjective judgment.
Raw Data:
http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/SupremeCourt/PDFs/Cloture.pdf
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm
http://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Cloture_vrd.htm
http://rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=HowCongressWorks.RulesOfSenate
Posted by: SouthernRoots on May 7, 2009 01:29 PMGeorge Stephanopolous would not say that democrats "tried" to filibuster if they had. He is the only source you're citing, so he is the only one I can refute. I have independently cited many other sources that have clearly said a filibuster did not occur. You refuse to respond directly to my citations of the Washington Post, Fox News, Senators McConnell and Hatch (both R), and others.
Funny, you previously said this was a judgment call. Now you're asserting there was no filibuster, which is just as incorrect -- according to you -- as my saying there was one.
You're presenting your subjective judgment as fact, without evidence showing a consensus. I would operate on the more intellectually honest field, but you are not and are misleading people in the process. I don't think you should get away with it. The vast majority of sources state that no filibuster occurred, and that is how I provide substance to my "judgment call." You are not providing substance.
Worse, you yourself have admitted that it is irrelevant what other people think, and yet you spend almost all your time here trying to prove that very irrelevant thing.
I believe it is important what all the relevant players and the media think and I believe it is important that historical fact reflects contemporary accounts. I have mostly been responding to this claim you made: yes, it was a filibuster, in my judgment, and in that of many other people on both sides of the aisle and in the news media.
Who are these many other people and why are they do hard to cite and source?
I am talking specifically about cases where the minority is attempting to prevent a vote, which everyone -- except you -- concedes this was.
Everyone? Is that like many other people. Start citing and sourcing your assertions, because your word is simply not a reliable indicator of history nor popular opinion.
SouthernRoots: Those are some great resources.
When someone like pudge uses "a degree of subjective judgment" should he really present that information as fact to readers of this blog? Should he do so when most political players and the media doesn't agree with his "subjective judgment"? Should he assert that many other people agree and support his "subjective judgment" against all evidence to the contrary? Finally, should he use this subjective judgment as a weapon to call people like Sen. Leahy liars?
On subjective matters like this, should we give the benefit of the doubt to Senators, media, and other contemporaries, or partisans re-visiting and re-interpreting history like pudge?
And does the fact that the filibuster is subjective in nature square this pudge's earlier statement: In my judgment, it is a fact? Can you on one hand describe something as subjective and then as factual on the other?
I posit that this "subjective judgment" can and should be informed to the contemporary coverage and opinions surrounding the event. Indeed, pudge agreed that we should be informed with other opinions with his many other people line. He has since not produced the names or quotes of these many other people, while my cited and sourced research has shown the opposite consensus opinion. Even subjective judgments should be informed those familiar with the process in question.
I concede that there will never be a rule to interpret for us to determine whether a filibuster occurred for a fact. (Though pudge earlier claimed that cloture showed this, he has been thoroughly discredited and has backed off this claim.) However, there is a preponderance of writing in the media and statements by political figures that show the consensus judgment: There was no filibuster. Disregarding this consensus, pudge asserts that Leahy was lying. That is not intellectually honest and it doesn't make it clear to reader that pudge is using his own subjective judgment which isn't informed of the consensus opinion nor the contemporary media coverage. A statement like that shouldn't appear on this blog without scrutiny.
Pudge had earlier asserted that the preponderance of evidence (many other people) supported his subjective judgment and has since provided no additional sources or citations for that claim. We can only conclude that he was misinformed about several things and that he should not be calling senators liars for a mere and admitted difference in subjectivity.
Pudge will respond to small sentences and create small asides. He won't respond to substance. He won't answer, Who are these many other people?
Posted by: John Jensen on May 7, 2009 02:34 PMRiiiiight. Because if you TRY to do something it means you DID NOT do it. This is actually your argument.
That is so insane -- even for YOU -- I just won't even bother reading anymore.
It's been a larf, but you lose. :-)
Leaving is easier than actually citing some sources? Well, I guess it is when those sources doesn't exist.
You're the one who originally made claims to know Stephonopolous' opinion. You have cited him to show many other people agree with your judgment. Ironic, because this has been your single, sole, and only citation for this entire discussion. This is what you're sourcing:
STEPHANOPOULOS: You filibustered Justice Alito, didn't you?
LEAHY: No. We don't filibuster for either side, and so we have -- there's going to be a vote, up or down. I fully expect that. I think the last time there was a kind of a successful filibuster was Abe Fortas, and that was a Democratic...
(CROSSTALK)
STEPHANOPOULOS: Democrats did try to filibuster Justice Alito, if I remember correctly, sir.
So, let's be clear. The only source you've provided was a question that was clarified the next time Stephonopolous opened his mouth. Stephonopolous never stated there was a filibuster, he didn't follow-up Leahy's "no" with disagreement, and his sole statement of opinion was that a filibuster was tried. His use of the phrase "if I recall correctly" implies to me that his original question needed clarification which he then provided.
The Stephonopolous transcript that either disagrees with you or is ambiguous enough to merit additional sources and citations. Given the ambitious nature of Stephonopolous question, which was neither a statement of fact nor this media figure's opinion, perhaps you should provide additional sources.
But you're done. You're not replying or reading anymore. You refuse to cite sources. And we'll never know who these many other people were. Astute followers of this thread will surely realize by now that these many other people do not exist. You were wrong on cloture, wrong on the filibuster, wrong on the political and media consensus, wrong on Stephonopolous, wrong to call Sen. Leahy a liar, and he was wrong to mislead the smart readers of Sound Politics who are obviously capable of disproving pudge's parallel history.
I'm asking for sources and for you to back up your statements with substance. I'm asking for a little bit of intellectual honest. Sure, that's totally crazy. Nuts. Insane. Or it's a totally appropriate way to handle disagreements without the brow-beating, condescension, and accusations that typify your writing style.
Why don't you stick to assuming the role of the infallible, never-wrong, final arbiter of the constitution? Once you start talking about the world post-Marbury v. Madison world you lose your self-obsessive sheen.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 7, 2009 03:33 PMI didn't leave. I simply stopped reading that insane comment you left.
I see you've added nothing else new to the discussion -- nor did you admit that it is utterly insane for you to say that if you TRY to do something, it means you DID NOT do it -- so there's nothing there for me to respond to.
The transcript you're reliant upon presents no evidence that a filibuster occurred:
STEPHANOPOULOS: You filibustered Justice Alito, didn't you?
LEAHY: No. We don't filibuster for either side, and so we have -- there's going to be a vote, up or down. I fully expect that. I think the last time there was a kind of a successful filibuster was Abe Fortas, and that was a Democratic...
(CROSSTALK)
STEPHANOPOULOS: Democrats did try to filibuster Justice Alito, if I remember correctly, sir.
Stephonopolous asked a question, and when Leahy said "no" Stephonopolous did not assert that a filibuster occurred but instead clarified his original question to say that one was attempted, and happened to mention his memory -- perhaps an allusion to recalling that a filibuster did in fact not occur. Why did he say "did try to" instead of "tried to"? Because democrats didn't filibuster Alito like his original question may have implied to viewers. It was a clarification that you didn't provide in your original post.
It seems if many believe that a filibuster occurred then Stephonopolous would have said "democrats did filibuster Alito, sir" instead of using his clarification/response to say "democrats did try to, if I remember correctly, sir."
Sen. Hatch, also on the program, spoke a moment later and said a filibuster was attempted. Why wouldn't Hatch just call Leahy out and say that a filibuster occurred? Why wouldn't Mitch McConnell as quoted in the WaPo? Why wouldn't FOX News? Why wouldn't Stephonopolous' follow-up?
The whole "This Week" thing is ridiculous. One media figure's ambiguous/disagreeable quote is hardly evidence many other people in media and politics concur that a filibuster occurred, which you claimed earlier in this thread. You have still yet to provide any evidence for this claim. In fact, I've demonstrated that you've yet to provide a single media or political source that unambiguously claims that Alito was filibustered. That's a long way from a consensus.
To the point, lying is a lot different than disagreeing with your subjective judgment, and especially so when that judgment is contrary to the political and media consensus. Instead of presenting this nuance and information to readers, you made the naked assertion that a filibuster occurred (which news to Alito, Bush, the Senate, and the media) and that Leahy was a liar. Neither of those things was wholly appropriate.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 7, 2009 05:08 PMOK, thanks for admitting you were wrong.
That means you thought to try something means to fail.
Which, come to think of it, might explain a lot about you.
If you agree that a exact definition of filibuster is a "subjective judgment," then how you justify calling one a liar over a disagreement in subjectivity?
Do you concede that most media accounts and most politicians do not describe a filibuster as occuring?
Posted by: John Jensen on May 7, 2009 06:03 PMShrug. He didn't.
he laid it down in logical and objective terms
Which I shot down effectively. Which is the point. The essence is that Leahy filibustered and lied that he didn't, which SouthernRoots proved beyond reasonable doubt by Leahy's own definition is what happened. And even if not, Leahy still lied when he said the Senate doesn't do that, since he tried to do that very thing himself to Alito. Jensen brought up not a single serious argument against any of this: he only tried -- and failed -- to show that what happened wasn't actually a filibuster, and that they didn't really even MEAN to TRY to filibuster, while at the same time quoting source after source that says they DID try to filibuster!
you ... morphed ... into intolerance
When he kept repeating his claims I'd already shot down, and contradicting himself over and again, and then actually arguing that "to try" means "to fail" ... I am intolerant of such nonsense. Aren't you?
And I hardly think you're objective here. You side with liberals and Democrats regularly. You use words like "Rethugs" and "Repugs." You side with Leahy and Jensen, and against me, on most issues.
Not that I care ... but you are not likely to convince anyone that you're the objective observer you claim to be.
And I don't doubt you really think he won. I think that's silly. Shrug. I'll sleep well tonight, and so will you. Let's join together and hope that Jensen will too. :-)
We're clearly not going to agree on these two points.
Pudge, I love talking about things like intent, and parliamentary maneuvers. Unfortunately I've learned that I cannot share any nuance or intellectual honesty with you because you end up exploiting it to confuse the issue! Everyone knows congress members vote strategically. Do you really think republicans wanted more time to "debate" Obama's stimulus? Because they were saying that! And they voted against limiting the debate through cloture! The entire cloture process is voting strategically -- you're playing dumb about the entire cloture votes "counting." Yeah they didn't count: many democrats voted against cloture to make their supporters but would have voted for cloture if it mattered. It was a "free" way to build up progressive credentials, and it is done on both sides with great frequency.
However, look, it is a vote on the record and of course you have a right to hold their feet to the fire. I would argue saying that voted for filibuster is technically inaccurate and attempts to define an intention. If you're going to define an intention, I feel it is justified to also look at things like strategy, politics, etc that probably played the biggest factor in their vote.
We both certainly know that there was absolutely no chance of a sustained filibuster of Alito that would have held up his nomination. In that sense Leahy's comment should be taken at face value: Supreme Court nominees should not be indefinitely or actively filibustered and should face an up-or-down vote in anything but extreme circumstances. I personally don't care if nominees are filibustered for a weekend before cloture passes by with 70+ votes -- really, do you?
Is your post is more than just calling Leahy a liar -- are you saying republicans would be justified to filibuster an Obama nominee? Or, um, since you've completely changed the definition of the word filibuster is there a word we can agree upon that actually fucking means indefinite delay?
And let's cut some of the damn tension: Who's your favorite democrat? Don't say George Stephonopolous.
I think George F. Will is one the smartest men in America and I have a great deal of respect for Lindsey Graham.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 7, 2009 07:58 PMYou're wrong, as has been clearly demonstrated.
You made a bold claim and have since walked away from it.
Because we BOTH agreed it is not relevant.
I've learned that I cannot share any nuance or intellectual honesty with you because you end up exploiting it to confuse the issue
Not only is that the pot calling the kettle black, it's also a cheap attempt at a red herring fallacy.
Everyone knows congress members vote strategically.
And everyone SHOULD know that when you vote, that is your word, and I -- and many other people -- will hold you to it. And they voted to prevent a vote on Alito.
If you're going to define an intention, I feel it is justified to also look at things like strategy, politics, etc that probably played the biggest factor in their vote.
I think you're conflating two things. The first is the intent to vote for filibuster. I think that is obvious. The second is the reason WHY they cast the vote to filibuster. And on that, I don't care: they voted for a filibuster. Doing so knowing it won't succeed doesn't in any way mitigate the fact that you gave your voice to that vote.
Is your post is more than just calling Leahy a liar -- are you saying republicans would be justified to filibuster an Obama nominee?
Let me be clear: I am generally against the filibuster. I dislike its existence. I'd like it done away with. That said, it does exist, and it is used, and I've never accepted the argument that there is anything unconstitutional about filibustering judicial nominees, and I would consider filibustering a judicial nominee whom I believe would not look first to his responsibility to follow the law, in making decisions.
However, if I were a Republican Senator who had made the argument that you should never filibuster a juducial nominee, then that would be a different story. Anyone who made the argument Frist made at the time, anyone who agreed with the use of the "nuclear option," would be hypocritical to support filibustering an Obama judicial nominee (just like many Democrats, like Leahy, are hypocrites for saying the Republicans should not, especially after several of them actually voted to abolish all filibusters when Clinton was President).
since you've completely changed the definition of the word filibuster
That never happened. You were doing so well until you threw out this pile of crazy.
And let's cut some of the damn tension: Who's your favorite democrat? Don't say George Stephonopolous.
Joe Lieberman. :p
Seriously, I don't have a favorite modern national Democrat. I can't think of one offhand. I like some local Democrats. Brian Sonntag comes to mind, though I don't know much about him. I like a handful Democrats in the county.
But at the national level, every one I can think of either a. hates the rule of law (that is, believes the law is not supreme, but that we should use "empathy" or other subjective measures to guide us instead), b. believes in massive government control over our lives, or c. is just a nasty jerk. Obama definitely fits a., and so far he seems to fit b., though we'll see. He is usually not c., but when talking about his conservative opposition he flirts with it.
If you can find a Democrat who fits none of those, and is also very bright and interesting, let me know.
Filibuster means to most "indefinite delay." 'Now' that it means any sort of procedural delay, we should have another word that represents a "true" filibuster -- i.e. one that prevents confirmation of a judge.
I personally believe that senate should give the president the ability to select his cabinet and Supreme Court nominees without the threat of a filibuster. I think in general this is pretty well-honored and typically goes further. I would not argue on constitutionality, but I'm not certain a motion to consent should face endless debate or delays in committee in anything but extreme circumstances.
I think when Obama nominates a liberal nominee, you're almost certain to find they don't believe in the rule of law and thus you may filibuster them if you were a senator. Things are more complex than that since a court is far, far more likely to judge precedence than constitutionality in all but the most extreme examples. In that sense, a Right to Privacy is a part of our constitution to most judges (and certainly all below the Supreme Court, and even then most on the Court rely on stare decisis and directly on the constitution and the intent of the founding fathers). So, for example, some liberal nominee relying on Roe v. Wade or some other affirmation of that right in a past position cannot be guaranteed to believe that the original decision itself is constitutional or not.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 8, 2009 10:43 AMArguing with Pudge is fruitless. Pudgie boy likes to call people liars if they disagree with him and to weasel his way out oof admitting he is wrong (when he actually is wrong).
No amount of facts will help your case. The bottom line is that a filibuster of the future Supremem court nomineee is moot anyways since the republicans do not have the votes to stop the cutoff of debate.
Being a small minority party of the deep south has its price. When all you have is pup tent of a party, you become irrelevant. They will rue losing Chafee, Spector and other moderate republicans...too bad. You sacrifice relevance for ideological purity.
Posted by: correctnotright on May 8, 2009 01:39 PMAnd no, you cannot want universal health care and still be against a massive government that controls our lives. That's like being a vegan, although you eat steak.
And no, filibuster does not mean "infinite delay." Ever. If that were the case, then Strom Thurmond's 24-hour filibuster never happened!
I think when Obama nominates a liberal nominee, you're almost certain to find they don't believe in the rule of law
Yes, because that is what Obama has explicitly been looking for. When Souter stepped down Obama talked about empathy, but NEVER ONCE mentioned following the law. His priorities are clear.
Things are more complex than that
No.
a court is far, far more likely to judge precedence than constitutionality in all but the most extreme examples
So it's OK to pick someone who WILL NOT follow the Constitution, as Breyer and Ginsburg don't? Just because this is, in your (incorrect) opinion, a minority of cases? (And yes, it's incorrect: even when precedent is holding in a Supreme Court case, it usually only gets TO the Supreme Court because the Court believes that the case is different enough from precedent to warrant a rehearing, which means precedent alone is not sufficient. Normally, the lower courts follow the precedents closely, and so the Court would not hear the case if it is merely a reaffirmation of clear precedent. That means that even when the precedents determine a case, it is normally in light of a reexamination of those precedents against the Constitution and federal law.)
In that sense, a Right to Privacy is a part of our constitution to most judges
The question is not whether there is a right to privacy, the question is what a right to privacy covers. And no one who actually cares about the rule of law can think that it covers the right to destroy a life in the womb. That makes no sense whatever.
If the life in the womb has no rights, then there's no need for a right to privacy to protect the right to abortion: the simple fact that it is your body, and that you therefore have liberty, is sufficient. If the life in the womb has rights, then the right to privacy cannot logically trump those rights.
some liberal nominee relying on Roe v. Wade or some other affirmation of that right in a past position cannot be guaranteed to believe that the original decision itself is constitutional or not
Irrelevant to anything I've said. All I've said is that I require judges to put the law first and foremost. Ginsburg and Breyer explicitly do not. Obama's pick is almost certain to follow suit.
Yes, Jensen did say there was no filibuster ... but just before and after that, he agreed that this wasn't true. Oops.
And no, there is no sense in which we will regret losing Chafee the Younger. At all. Chafee was not a moderate Republican. He was further to the left than many Democrats (including the aforementioned Evan Bayh). He was literally a Republican only because his dad was.
Specter, maybe, but unlikely.
Universal health care does not require a massive government. You must be unaware what the term means. It means that everyone has health care insurance -- even private insurance. How you create that universality is where the disagreement is. You need to read up on policy issues pudge. Even republicans in congress say that everyone should have health care. Universality is a pretty easy concept to understand.
Just because this is, in your (incorrect) opinion, a minority of cases? (And yes, it's incorrect
I said a court, jackass, not "the" court. As in past rulings by a nominee that you'd be writing your scathing posts about. As in, you'll be angry and mad even though stare decisis decided nearly every case.
And you are also wrong about the supreme court. Read more decisions, nearly always they reference past cases and "rules" or "tests" devised in those cases. Very rarely do you see a decision reference the original constitution. That is usually because while the constitution is terse, decisions explain very clearly and in paragraphs what the courts believe the document says.
Any abortion case is about Roe and Casey, for example, and the right to privacy.
The question is not whether there is a right to privacy, the question is what a right to privacy covers
That isn't the question anymore. Roe v. Wade established the right to privacy.
Irrelevant to anything I've said.
Not everything I write is about you.
Yes, Jensen did say there was no filibuster ... but just before and after that, he agreed that this wasn't true. Oops.
Don't speak for me again, arrogant fool.
You are completely wrong. There was no filibuster. No one said there was, and I proved that earlier. I completely decimated your sources and your words. Instead of citing sources, you played games and avoided my questions. You completely lost that argument.
What there was was a "filibuster." An air-quotes, sarcastic, "filibuster". A "filibuster" that no one besides pudge would call a "filibuster". And you've ruined what that words means, since any procedural action is a "filibuster" and we no longer have a short term for indefinite delay.
You're still delaying on me. What's the new word for indefinite procedural delay?
Posted by: John Jensen on May 10, 2009 01:01 PMUniversal health care does not require a massive government.
False.
It means that everyone has health care insurance -- even private insurance.
Which requires massive government.
I said a court, jackass, not "the" court.
Oh, so you admit your point was a non sequitur? Interesting.
And you are also wrong about the supreme court.
False.
Read more decisions, nearly always they reference past cases and "rules" or "tests" devised in those cases.
Nothing I said implied otherwise.
Very rarely do you see a decision reference the original constitution.
Absolutely false. You have just proven you have no clue whatsoever. It is, in fact, extremely rare that a decision does NOT reference the original Constitution.
Not everything I write is about you.
It was written TO me. You were trying to argue, to me, that a judge's written opinion in a case does not reflect on their actual opinion, as they could be ruling on the law and precedent rather than what they think the Constitution means. And nothing I ever said disagreed with that. You again tried to make this point (again, to me) in @132 ... and again, it has no bearing on anything I've said.
I'm not. YOU did. I was just referencing what you said, forgetful fool. You said whether a filibuster took place is subjective. Now you state it is objectively NOT a filibuster. How soon you forget your own argument! By using the exact same definition Senator Leahy uses on his web site? You've dug yourself so deep you don't know which way is up anymore.
Don't speak for me again, arrogant fool.
And you've ruined what that words means
No, pudge.
Nominees who currently occupy seat in a court almost exclusively make decisions on stare decisis, thus it is difficult to determine their judicial leanings based on their decisions. Which is why nominees like Souter turn out to be more liberal than expected.
Absolutely false. You have just proven you have no clue whatsoever. It is, in fact, extremely rare that a decision does NOT reference the original Constitution.
You are completely wrong.
By using the exact same definition Senator Leahy uses on his web site?
So now Leahy is your source? Do you have any idea on how to keep you arguments consistent?
Again, do not speak for me. I have proven systematically and without a doubt that Alito did not experience a filibuster. You have presented no evidence that one occurred. You said many people agreed with you, but have presented no evidence for that claim. You made it up, and you got slapped hard for being so foolish.
You've dug yourself so deep you don't know which way is up anymore.
You're dodging the question. Now that you've changed the meaning of the word filibuster to score partisan points, what do we call an indefinite delay?
Oh, who are we kidding. You won't answer because you're incapable of discussing anything rationally.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 11, 2009 11:26 AMIrrelevant to anything I said.
You are completely wrong.
No. Find me one. Go ahead. JUST ONE. A single SCOTUS decision from this term that does not reference the Constitution.
So now Leahy is your source? Do you have any idea on how to keep you arguments consistent?
I never said his definition of filibuster was wrong. I said he was lying when he said there was none, and lying when he said the Senate didn't do that. There's no inconsistency there.
I have proven systematically and without a doubt that Alito did not experience a filibuster.
First, of course, you did no such thing. I won that argument handily.
Second, you said that whether there is a filibuster is subjective, so by your own words, you COULD NOT prove such a thing.
You have presented no evidence that one occurred.
False, of course. I proved it well beyond reasonable doubt.
You're dodging the question.
You're lying.
Now that you've changed the meaning of the word filibuster
You're lying.
