The incomparable Mark Steyn agrees that the shenanigans up north amount to a Canadian Constitutional coup, as I wrote two weeks ago. Mr. Steyn writes that the biggest problem facing Canada is that no one cares.
Unlike King/Byng or Sir John Kerr firing Gough Whitlam, what makes this a constitutional crisis is that there’s no crisis: Parliament votes, and Martin shrugs; Martin fiddles the math, and Canada shrugs.
Wretchard thinks that the fact that the left (in America as well) is forced to break the rules to stay in power is a hopeful sign.
What characterizes much of the Left today as exemplified by behavior from George Galloway to Paul Martin is the increasing necessity to maintain their position By Any Means Necessary. While that is dangerous and infuriating, it is a reliable indicator that they have lost control of the system. Things just aren't working the way they used to. And that, despite everything, is cause for hope.
Witness also the tantrums of the American Democrats as they attempt to maintain control of the Senate while holding a minority of the seats.
The juiciest part is that Andrew Coyne links to tapes of Paul Martin's chief of staff bribing an opposing MP.
The Prime Minister's chief of staff, on tape, apparently discussing the possibility of a Senate seat for Gurmant Grewal if he abstains in tomorrow's vote.
Well well well well the right does things to stay in power too, evil things like winning elections!
It's too bad for the Republicans that popular support for Frist's aptly-named Nuclear Option isn't very high.
.. just as it wasn't very high for the Republican party's actions in the Terri Schiavo incident.
.. just as it isn't for earlier iterations of Bush's Social Security plan. (I say "earlier iterations" because negotiated plans are in the works and who knows what popular support for them will entail)
I also wonder how the Republicans (and how all the conservative pundits) would react if the situation were reversed; where they're the minority party, without control of either the Presidency or Congress. I bet they'd be doing exactly what Democrats are doing with regards to judicial nominees.
Part of me wants to see the Nuclear Option used... if only to see the fallout. The Republican party won't be in control forever. Conservatives may regret this Nuclear Option when they find themselves on the shorter end of the stick.
103rd Congress (1993-1995) - Clinton
Majority Party: Democrat (57 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (43 seats)
96th Congress (1979-1981) - Carter
Majority Party: Democrat (58 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (41 seats)
95th Congress (1977-1979) - Carter
Majority Party: Democrat (61 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (38 seats)
1975 Filibuster rule changed under the leadership of Majority Leader Byrd from 2/3 to 3/5 for the ending of debate.
90th Congress (1967-1969) - LBJ
Majority Party: Democrat (64 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (36 seats)
89th Congress (1965-1967) - LBJ
Majority Party: Democrat (68 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (32 seats)
88th Congress (1963-1965) - LBJ
Majority Party: Democrat (66 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (34 seats)
87th Congress (1961-1963) - JFK
Majority Party: Democrat (64 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (36 seats)
Democrat control of the Senate also existe under FDR & Truman with the 1 exception:
80th Congress (1947-1949)
Majority Party: Republican (51 seats)
Minority Party: Democrat (45 seats)
Of those years when democrats had the White House and the Senate (because the House plays no role in Judges) there was no a single case where a Judical Nominee was with held a vote on the floor by a filibuster of judges.
The noteable exception is Abe Fortas, but the fillibuster was preformed by members of both parties. "The nomination set off a four day filibuster led by Republicans and southern Democrats ("Dixiecrats"). A "cloture" motion to end the filibuster failed. At that time, 66 votes were needed to stop debate. The vote was 45-43, with 10 Republicans and 35 Democrats voting for cloture and 24 Republicans and 19 Democrats voting against cloture. The 12 other remaining Democrats were not present. Fortas then withdrew his name from consideration."
What again were you saying about Republicans doing the same thing?
Actually, Republicans blocked almost 60 judges when Clinton was in the White House via anonymous holds, filibusters, etc.
See this story for more info.
And.. as your factoid about the filibuster rule changing in 1975 indicates... Republicans are attempting to do what the Democrats did in 1975: change the rules to suit the situation they're in. Frist isn't seeking to put the rule back to 2/3rd's... he wants to put it at something completely different.
The factoid also indicates the Senate rules have not remained unchanged for 200 years.
From the article you will note how 55 Clinton Nominees were held up:
"The committee chairman can decide to not schedule a hearing; therefore the nomination doesn’t move to the Senate floor for a vote. During Bill Clinton's presidency, the Judiciary Committee failed to hold hearings for 55 of his judicial nominees."
But to be comittee chairman you have to have a majority of seats, which the republicans did. A majority which the Republicans had from 1995-2001 oof Clinton's term, and if you notice in the article the speak of 1999 & 2000 nominees when the Republicans held 55 seats.
Even the 'filibuster' of Paez had majority support when it was initally voted on. Can you say that about any of the current or threatened filibusters of Bush nominees?
Anonymous holds also require you to be in the majority.
Blue Slips require that the judge come from your state.
If you want to go back to Clinton to compare, how many Clinton nominees were filibustered from 1993-1995 when the Democrats held the Senate majority?
Bueller....Bueller...
To summarize, all the Clinton nominees the Republicans blocked were done the old fashoned way by having a majority which comes from winning enough Senatorial Elections to hold a majority of the seats of the Senate. They did not filibuster when they were the minority party.
Nominees were blocked during the six years Republicans controlled the Senate under President Clinton at a rate nearly 40 percent higher than during the six years Democrats controlled the Senate under Presidents Reagan and Bush - 35 percent under Clinton vs. 25 percent under Reagan and Bush.
At any rate, none of this precludes anything about future Republican party actions.
While it is true that Senate rules haven't remained unchanged over the course of this country's existence, the issue is whether it is right for rule changes to be made to suit the current extent of power that one party has over the other. As I said, Frist isn't looking to put the rules back to the 2/3rds... because he doesn't have 2/3rds any more than he has 3/5ths. He wants to change it to suit what he has for a majority now.. and something that would suit the Republicans even if they lost 4 seats (and were left with 51). Seems a bit overreaching to me.
-->Nominees were blocked during the six years Republicans controlled the Senate under President Clinton at a rate nearly 40 percent higher than during the six years Democrats controlled the Senate under Presidents Reagan and Bush - 35 percent under Clinton vs. 25 percent under Reagan and Bush.
the Pirate said: "Tell me when the minority party fillibustered a Presidental Judical Appointment that had cleared the Judical Committee"
On that one point, you are correct.
That one point, however, doesn't change anything else about this debate... and it certainly doesn't mean the Republicans wouldn't do the same thing if, in the future, they became what the Democratic party is today: the minority party.
The lone example we can draw conclusions from is Abe Fortas (Associate Supreme Court Justice to Chief Supreme Court Justice), however the even if the 34 Republicans were on board to filibuster (10 were against, 24 were for) the Democrats could of over come it and the only reason the filibuster went forward on the nominations is because it had bi-partisan support.
That point IS the debate. The debate is weither or not the minority party can prevent Judges who reached the floor to get a vote.
Its not a debate about well when the Republicans controled the Senate and Clinton was in office....because the it is a completelty different set of circumstances from this current situation. Now if you want to compare how many jusdges got up or down votes under Clinton when Democrats controlled the Senate, that is a valid point because the circumstances are the same.
As far as what each party will do in the future is pure speculation, you don't know Republicans will act like the Democrats are, and past experience would not support any claims that they would. To say well the Republicans will do the samething with out any empirical data to support is about as effective as passing a bill saying the Queen of England cannot pick our Judges because in the future we may be part of the Commonwealth again.
We can't argue what ifs, because you can have as many outlandish what ifs as you want, but you have to argue what is & what was.
There is a simple solution, stop filibustering, vote for cloture and hold a fair up or down vote.
tP: That's not what the debate is. The debate is whether or not Republicans should change the rules of the Senate because, as it did for the Democrats in 1975, it suits them... even though it probably won't suit them in the future.
If the Republicans go ahead and use Frist's "nuclear option".. it may well come to bite them in the a$$. Popular support for the plan does not suggest that Frist's plan is in line with what the public wants.
The Constitution doesn't give the majority party the "right" to an up-or-down vote on judicial nominees.
Mark: The Pirate has got you on this one I think. The Republicans blocked nominees when they were in the majority, and the majorty has the Constitutional authority to consent or not. The minority has no Constitutional power, just the power of Senate rules, which can be changed at any time by the majority. So it goes. The idea that if the Republicans respect the Dems' filibuster the Dems will then return the favor when they're in power is absurd. We already know what the Dems do when they're in power: whatever they can get away with. Why should the Reps play softball?
As for popular support, polls mean nothing. All that matters are elections. Taking unpopular actions might cost the Reps elections in the future, but that should delight you.
MW said: "We already know what the Dems do when they're in power: whatever they can get away with."
The Republicans do the same thing.
MW said: "Taking unpopular actions might cost the Reps elections in the future, but that should delight you."
It does. As I said earlier, part of me wants to see the Republicans use this "nuclear option". The bigger they are, the harder they fall.
MW said: "The idea that if the Republicans respect the Dems' filibuster the Dems will then return the favor when they're in power is absurd."
I didn't propose that idea.
How well did leading the Judical Filibuster work out for Daschle?
Wait a second there the whole problem is the Republican Senator as a majority wanting to be able to vote on judical nominees, just like the Democrats Senators did when they were the majority and a Democrat President appointed them? The Democrat conduct plays no role in the debate, come on now lets be a little fair with framing the debate. Without the Democrat Minority Filibuster we would not be cussin & discussin about changing Senate rules.
tP: Oh yes... Democrats and Republicans have indeed played both "obstructionist" and "Up-or-down is all we ask" roles.
tP said: "Without the Democrat Minority Filibuster we would not be cussin & discussin about changing Senate rules."
Careful now... the only person who's responsible for your reaction to any given event is you.