Turkey talking points
Tim Mooney
A very happy Thanksgiving to you all. For those of us who come from - and let me be charitable here - families of mixed political persuasion, Thanksgiving can be a time of utter torture. Our conservative family members, fresh from a hefty helping of half-truths, mis-truths and out-and-out lies from Rush, Lars, and the like, feel compelled to make us suffer from their regurgitated bits of bile. Now, I’m a firm believer in family values, but I often find it difficult to hold back my urge to hurl plates of mashed potatoes towards my family members as the discussions escalate. Instead of going all Ron Artest on them... I politely defend with the facts, and sometimes the law.
This year, I anticipate a healthy debate over Supreme Court nominations, particularly the notion of the Senate's advise and consent role and the filibuster. Since it is the season of sharing, let me run through the recipe for winning the basic argument over the Constitutionality of a filibuster in this arena:
***Ingredients***
The Constitution of the United States of America
- Article I, Section 5, Clause 2
- Article II, Section 2, Clause 2
***Directions***
Take the powers of Article I, which grant both houses of Congress to "determine the Rules of its Proceedings." This grants the Senate the Constitutional authority to create, amongst other rules, the filibuster. Whip briskly.
Spoon the filibuster authority with the powers of Article II that demand that the President's power to appoint "Judges of he supreme Court" be "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate." Whip until smooth.
Bake at 100 degrees (DC summers are brutal) for 218 years. Season to taste.
***Notes***
The Constitution doesn't have the word filibuster in it!
Yes, but Article I gives the absolute authority to create the rule, so the filibuster is 100% legal.
There's never been a filibuster for a Supreme Court justice!
Yes, but that doesn't mean it's unconstitutional or otherwise illegal.
Um... then it's unconstitutional to use a filibuster for judicial nominations!
Actually, no. The Advise and Consent power in Article II does not state that the process plays by special rules (like, say impeachment). Therefore we have to look at what the rest of the Constitution says about rules for the Senate. Go no further than Article I, Section 5, Clause 2... the Senate gets to "determine the Rules of its Proceedings."
And don’t give me that “framers’ intent” nonsense either. Strict constructionists are always screaming about that. If the framers intended a narrower role for the Senate than by its own self-defined rules, then the framers would have said something about it in Article II. They didn’t. Article I wins.
But… but, it's WRONG!
Says you, and I never heard this sense of indignation before it mattered to you politically.
The Senate should change the rules!
Ok, that would be fine. Get 2/3 of the Senate to change them... that's the rule on changing rules… but don’t you dare whine after Dems take back the Senate and White House.
But I still think this is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!
Well, you have one very bad option left. Go nuclear and get the VP to declare the filibuster unconstitutional for nomination debates, have half the Senate agree and then watch the country spin into a Constitutional crisis... a recipe for disaster burnt to a crisp by a President who’s a uniter and not a divider?
Please… hurl potatoes only if absolutely necessary. Happy Holidays to the left, right and center!
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Nov 23, '04
"Our conservative family members, fresh from a hefty helping of half-truths, mis-truths and out-and-out lies from Rush, Lars, and the like, feel compelled to make us suffer from their regurgitated bits of bile."
Ahhh! Gotta love that liberal "tolerance"! I'll be having Thanksgiving dinner with my Blue Oregon-contributing father-in-law, my Democrat convention delegate step-mother-in-law, and my Kerry-voting wife and I'm sure we'll have a wonderful time as usual. Whatever our disagreements, respect prevails. And besides, we agree that there's plenty to be thankful for in this wonderful country in which only one of us was born.
2:19 p.m.
Nov 23, '04
Anthony -- I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments on being thankful for living in this amazing country. Thank you for reminding us all of that (and I hope I conveyed the same with the last sentence of my post).
Still, our differences do matter. If my choice of words offend you, please feel free to disagree and dip into the well of Frank Luntz-tested rhetoric. My opinion on Rush and Lars stands.
2:30 p.m.
Nov 23, '04
This is an odd turn for the conversation to have taken, but let's follow it just a step or two. (But not before I compliment Tim on a well-crafted and clever post.)
During this DeLay business, I've been seeing people--some even on the left--rebuke critics who call DeLay "corrupt" (or some variant thereof). Now Tim is taken to task for calling Lars and Rush liars. All apparently, out of some kind of misplaced notion of decorum.
When, exactly, did decrying abuses of truth or power become "impolite?" My guess is that this comes from the right itself, whose remaining argument, now that Dems are out of all power, is that the left is somehow dangerously uppity. God forbid we should mention that Rush lies like a cheap coat.
To this point I'll agree: Thanksgiving is a meal best served warm, not in the icy stillness of a two-hour political fight. Whatever we think about politics, we presumably still love our family. Probably a wonderful day for families of mixed politics to observe a partisan freeze. Unless we're talking the Lions, when not rooting for the Lions--and Joey Harrington--get what they deserve.
Nov 23, '04
The Democrats should dare the Republicans to "go nuclear", rather than allow themselves to be cowed into compromise by this empty threat. Democrats always seem to get cowed by empty Repubican threats that, if Republicans were to follow through on them, would result in a huge backlash in the Democrats' favor.
Nov 23, '04
In 1968 the filibuster was used to derail the Fortas appointment to the supreme court.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Filibuster_Derails_Supreme_Court_Appointment.htm
<hr/>Senate rules define cloture (how a filibuster can be overridden). They do not address the filibuster itself -- as unlimited debate was an accepted norm in the early senate (and house). Without senate rules, filibusters would be allowed.
The 'nuclear option" involves declaring unconstitutional the 2/3 majority requirement for cloture (ending a debate) when a bill aimed at changing senate rules is on the floor. The nuclear option basically says that all rules imposed by a previous senate sessions are non-binding -- in practice it means that the majority in the senate can pick and choose which of the previous senate laws they wich to abide by. In this case, they declare the 2/3 cloture rule non-binding, and then vote by a simple majority to make a new cloture rule (probably 51 votes).
Given the brevity of the constitution on senate rules -- the nuclear option provides the senate majority with a huge amount of freedom. Freedom from 228 years and 31,000 word of senate rules. The logical extension of the nuclear option is minority members being forced to wear donkey ear hats while Cheney is in the chamber.
The nuclear option is evidently tangentially supported by some rulings by the supreme court against "legislative entrenchment". The consequences of extending this logic to senate rules are fairly extensive and go against 228 years of precedent.
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/confirmation_watch/nuclear_option.htm
Nov 23, '04
Links didn't come through. Here they are again:
link 1
link 2
5:33 p.m.
Nov 23, '04
I stand corrected on the Fortas elevation to Chief Justice. I should have been clearer that no new nominee has been the target of a filibuster.
As to the second point, I think everyone can see why I chose not to go into the details of Senate rules on cloture or the nuclear option... that's the kind of dialogue that will put people at the table to sleep faster than you can say tryptophan. That being said, thanks to fle for an excellent summary!
6:33 p.m.
Nov 23, '04
There'll be harmony once again in the Dunagan household for Thanksgiving - here's to everyone, including every one of those I've tangled with on this board to various degrees, enjoying a full day of whatever the hell you want to eat, watch, or do.
And in the spirit of giving, here's my short list of conservative Supreme Court potentials that I wouldn't reach through my television screen, if able, to strangle before their Senate confirmations:
J. Harvie Wilkinson Michael McConnell
Nov 24, '04
Happy Thanksgiving, all.
Nov 25, '04
Happy Thanksgiving all. Thought I should send this URL
http://www.politicsofhope.com/
It is what Donna Zajonc is doing these days. What some fail to realize is how many of us really admired Republican legislators of the sort Donna was (polite to everyone, interested in solutions and not just rhetoric)BUT have never admired bullies and that is how Rush, Hannity et. al. come across. Anyone who has ever said to small children that they were supposed to play together nicely and not get into fights is not required to say something positive about radio hosts who yell at opponents as if those the radio hosts disagree with have no right to their opinions.
If I say "People have the right to disagree, but not the right to scream at each other or bully opponents" does that make me "intolerant"?
Or are the only "tolerant people" the ones who say Rush, Lars et. al. are paragons of virtue and accuracy who regularly suggest concrete solutions and don't just bash opponents?
Why is this a "tolerant" exchange?: "Our conservative family members, fresh from a hefty helping of half-truths, mis-truths and out-and-out lies from Rush, Lars, and the like, feel compelled to make us suffer from their regurgitated bits of bile."
Ahhh! Gotta love that liberal "tolerance"!"
<hr/>