Click Here

Visit Bloomberg.com to get all the news, commentary and context you need. Content,video, alerts and podcasts. Online exclusives now available.

CATEGORIES
ARCHIVES
Look Who's Linking to PoliBlog:
3cx.org
Absinthe and Cookies
Accidental Verbosity
Admiral Quixote's Roundtable
All Day Permanent Red
All Things Jennifer
Ann Althouse
The American Mind
Arguing with signposts
Arms and influence
The Astute Blogger
Asymmeterical Information
Attaboy
augustus
B-Town Blog Boys
BabyTrollBlog
Backcountry Conservative
Balloon Juice
Bananas and Such Begging to Differ
The Bemusement Park
Benedict
Bewtween the Coasts
Betsy's Page
The Big Picture
BipolarBBSBlog
BIZBLOGGER
bLogicus
Blogs for Bush
The Blog of Daniel Sale
BoiFromTroy
Boots and Sabers
brykMantra
BushBlog
The Bully Pulpit
Cadillac Tight
Caffeinated Musing
California Yankee
Captain's Quarters
Chicago Report
Chicagoland of Confusion
Citizen Smash
Coldheartedtruth
Collected Thoughts
The Command Post
Common Sense and Wonder
Confessions Of A Political Junkie
The Conservative Philosopher
Conservative Revolution
Conservative and Right
Cranial Cavity
The Daily Lemon
Daly Thoughts
DANEgerus Weblog
Dart Frog on a Cactus
Dean's World Dear Free World
Brad DeLong
Democracy Project
DiVERSiONZ
The Disagreeable Conservative Curmudgeon
Down to the Piraeus
Drink this...
Earl's log
Earthly Passions
The Education Wonks
the evangelical outpost
exvigilare
Eye of the Storm
Feste
Filtrat
Firepower Forward
The Flying Space Monkey Chronicles
The Friendly Ghost
FringeBlog
Fruits and Votes
Functional, if not decorative
G-Blog.net
The Galvin Opinion
The Glittering Eye
Haight Speech
Half-Bakered
The Hedgehog Report
Heh. Indeed.
Hellblazer
Hennessy's View
High Desert Skeptic
The Hillary Project
History and Perceptions
Robert Holcomb
I love Jet Noise
Idlewild South
Incommunicado
Independent Thinker
Insults Unpunished
Interested-Participant
Internet Ronin
Ipse Dixit
It Can't Rain All The Time...
The Jay Blog
Jen Speaks
Joefish's Freshwater Blog
John Lemon
johnrpierce.info blog
Judicious Asininity
Jump In, The Water's Fine!
Just On The Other Side
KeepinItReal
A Knight's Blog
The Kudzu Files
LeatherPenguin
Let's Try Freedom
LibertarianJackass.com
Liberty Father
Life and Law
David Limbaugh
LittleBugler
Locke, or Demosthenes?
LostINto
Mad Minerva
Gary Manca
Mark the Pundit
Mediocre but Unexciting
memeorandum
Mental Hiccups
Miller's Time
Mind of Mog
Minorities For Bush
Mr. Hawaii
The Moderate Voice
The Modulator
Much Ado
Mungowitz End
My opinion counts
my thoughts, without the penny charge
My Word
mypetjawa
Naw
Neophyte Pundit
Neutiquam erro
New England Republican
NewsHawk Daily
neWs Round-Up
NixGuy.com
No Pundit Intended
Nobody asked me, but...
Obsidian Wings
Occam's Toothbrush
On the Fritz
On the Third Hand
One Fine Jay
Out of Context
Outside the Beltway
Suman Palit
Parablemania
Passionate America
Brian Patton
Peaktalk
Pelicanpost
Peppermint Patty
Phlegma
John Pierce
PiratesCove
Politicalman
The Politicker
The Politburo Diktat
Political Annotation
Political Blog For The Politically Incorrect
Possumblog
Power Politics
Powerpundit.com
Practical Penumbra
Priorities & Frivolities ProfessorBainbridge.com
Prof. Blogger's Pontifications
Pros and Cons
protein wisdom
PunditFilter
Pundit Heads
QandO
The Queen of All Evil
Quotes, Thoughts, and other Ramblings
Ramblings' Journal
Random Acts of Kindness
Random Nuclear Strikes
Ranting Rationalist
Read My Lips
Reagan Country
Red State Diaries
Jay Reding.com
A Republican's Blog
Resource.full
The Review
Rhett Write
Right Side of the Rainbow
Right Wingin-It
Right Wing News
Right Voices
Rightward Reasonings
riting on the wall
robwestcott
Rooftop Report
RoguePundit
The Sake of Argument
Sailor in the Desert
Scrappleface
Secular Sermons
Sha Ka Ree
Shaking Spears
She Who Will Be Obeyed!
The Skeptician
The Skewed
Slant/Point.
Slobokan's Site O' Schtuff
small dead animals
Sneakeasy's Joint
SoCal Law Blog
A Solo Dialogue
Solomonia
Some Great Reward
Southern Musings
Speed of Thought...
Spin Killer
Matthew J. Stinson
A Stitch in Haste
Stop the ACLU
The Strange Political Road Trip of Jane Q. Public
The Strata-Sphere
Stuff about
Suman Palit
SwimFinsSF
Target Centermass
Templar Pundit
The Temporal Globe
Tex the Pontificator
Texas Native
think about it...
Tiger
Tobacco Road Fogey
Toner Mishap
Tony Talks Tech
The Trimblog
Truth. Quante-fied.
Twenty First Century Republican
Unlocked Wordhoard
Use The Forks!!
Ut Humiliter Opinor
Varifrank
VietPundit
Vista On Current Events
VodkaPundit
Vox Baby
Jeff Vreeland's Blog
Wall of Sleep
Weapons of Mass Discussion
Who Knew?
The Window Manager
Winning Again!
WizBang!
WizBang Tech
The World Around You
The Yin Blog
You Big Mouth, You!
Zygote-Design
al.com - Alabama Weblogs

AJC's 2004 Election Politics Sites and Blogs
Campaign Finance
Welcome to newcounterculture.com World O' Blogs
WRKO-AM's "Political Junkies" list
Yahoo! Directory Political Weblogs
Young Elephant

Who Links Here

Sunday, March 6, 2005
The Constitution and Changing the Rules in the Senate
By Dr. Steven Taylor @ 8:06 am

There was a time when I wasn’t so sure that the Republicans ought to change the filibuster rule, as I was concerned as to precedent and as to ramifications. Of course, I also thought that the Democrats would seek a less rigorous opposition post-election (I still think that the smart move for the Democrats would be to allow some of these nominees to pass, and then be in a position to appear reasonable and then block the others). However, such an outcome appears not to be in the cards, so I see no option but for the Republicans to seek to eliminate the filibuster as it pertains to nominees to the courts.

After the 2000 election, the Democrats could at least make an argument that Bush didn’t really have the full right to remake the courts via his nominations-certainly it was an argument that had some public sympathy (not one I really bought, mind you, but it could be made). Still, the fact that the Republicans gained in the Senate in 2002 and 2004, not to mention the fact that Bush was convincingly re-elected in 2004, utterly destroys whatever tenuous basis those arguments had in the first place.

In all honesty, despite whatever arguments that the Democrats may make, the Republicans are on firm Constitutional ground, and the Democrats only have tradition to fall back upon. Not only is it true that the filibuster rules have been changed before (and at the behest of Robert Byrd, no less), but there is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees the filibuster power.

Byrd, in his speech the other day, and in an editorial in WaPo made claims about the Constitution in connection with the current debate over the Democrats’ filibustering ways vis-à-vis Bush’s Appeals Court Nominees. To wit, in WaPo he wrote:

It starts with shutting off debate on judges, but it won’t end there. This nuclear option could rob a senator of the right to speak out against an overreaching executive branch or a wrongheaded policy. It could destroy the Senate’s very essence — the constitutional privilege of free speech and debate.

To which I say: that is an application of the slippery slope fallacy so bad as to make a college sophomore with any self-respect blush. Further, it is a load of rhetorical balderdash. By that logic the members of the House of Representatives have neither debate nor free speech because they do not have the right to unlimited debate.

The nonsense continues:

To understand the danger, one needs to understand the Senate. The Framers created an institution designed not for speed or efficiency but as a place where mature wisdom would reside. They intended the Senate to be the stabilizer, the fence, the check on attempts at tyranny. To carry out that role, an individual senator has the right to speak, perhaps without limit, in order to expose an issue or draw attention to new or differing viewpoints. But this legislative nuclear option would mute dissent and gag opposition voices.

He is correct about the basic design of the Senate in an abstract sense. However, there is nothing, absolutely nothing in the Constitution that dictates the amount of time that Senators can/should be allowed to debate. Indeed, there is nothing about changing the filibuster rule for nominees that would stop debate, or stop the filibuster option for other legislative matters. There is already a stricture against filibusters over the budget, does the Senator from West Virginia then suggest that there is a lack of “free speech and debate” over the budget and that in those case the opposition is gagged? What nonsense.

(And, note the “perhaps” in Byrd’s paragraph about debate).

Further, doing away with the filibuster for judicial nominees would not silence debate. Rather, it would allow one. The current situation is that the Democrats are blocking the nominations from being heard on the floor, and therefore there has been no floor debate on the nominees, just attempts to debate whether there will be a debate. The whole goal here is to get the nominees to the floor so that a debate and then a vote could be taken. Byrd is disingenuous at best when he cries “we can’t speak” in this process, when it is the very goal of the Democratic minority (the one that shrank at the polls last year) to obstruct the process.

Indeed, if all Senator Byrd wants is to protect debate, then the current situation would allow the Democratic minority to hold the floor until they were finished with their say, and then they could vote for cloture, which would allow for a vote on the nominee under debate. As such, they could employ their persuasive powers on the floor on the Senate to try and change the minds of some of the majority, or to use the press to transmit their views to the public in hope of the public, in turn, pressuring the majority. However, this is not about defending the right of the minority to debate (they have that now), it is about the right to outright block the President’s nominees (which they have been exercising for several years now). Since they appear to assume that their persuasive powers are inadequate, they have chosen to use the cloture rule as a blunt instrument that cuts off debate, rather than enhancing it.

If the Democrats simply want a debate, then all they have to do is negotiate with Republicans and state that they will allow a vote once debate is complete, however long that may take. However, they don’t want debate, they want the destruction of these nominations.

If we look at the actual U.S. Constitution we find that in regards to the internal workings of the Senate, the Republicans are right, and Senator Byrd is wrong, as Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 states:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings…

As such the Republicans, as the majority, have the right to change the rules (a right Byrd himself acknowledged in 1979). Indeed, all Byrd has, constitutionally speaking, is Article II, Section 2:

Clause 2: […] and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States…

And Byrd is right: there is no guarantee of a vote implied here. However, to infer the right to filibuster from this clause is lunacy

In short: Byrd and his allies in the Democratic Party do not want to simply protect free debate in the Senate-they have that right now and could easily maintain it. Rather, they are simply manipulating the rules to their advantage to block Appeals Court nominees, which is fair enough. However, the Republicans have every right to, in turn, use the rules to their advantage and change the rule over extended debate for judicial nominees. This, too, is fair.

The Democrats need to decide if they are willing to acquiesce somewhat, or further diminish their own power and standing. It seems they prefer the latter route. And while they may think that a massive response to the so-called “nuclear option” will bring them positive press, I think that it will, in fact, feed to current perception amongst many in the public that the Democrats are the party of obstruction, and it will not help them either in the PR wars, nor at the ballot box in 2006.

h/t: Joe Gandelman at Dean’s World for pointing out the Byrd editorial.

Filed under: US Politics | |Send TrackBack

What Attitude Problem? linked with
Villainous Company linked with Blogjam
ProfessorBainbridge.com linked with Fisking Byrd
QandO linked with
Hennessy's View linked with Robert Byrd: A History of Abuse of Congressional Power
Decision '08 linked with Miscellanea: The Virus Spreads Edition
Wizbang linked with The "Other" Nuclear Option
Outside The Beltway linked with Robert Byrd and the Filibuster
Arguing with signposts... » Sunday political talk linked with [...] Post | home | 3/6/2005 Sunday political talk Dr. Steven Taylor has been in a state of high exercise over Sen. Robert Byrd’s hypocritical stance re: the changing of Sen [...]

15 Comments »

  1. Robert Byrd and the Filibuster
    Steven Taylor has been blogging up a storm on the media-appointed Conscience of the Senate, Robert Byrd, and his ever-shifting views on the inviolability of the filibuster. He chronicles the history of the filibuster, and notes the many changes to the…

    Trackback by Outside The Beltway — Sunday, March 6, 2005 @ 9:18 am

  2. The “Other” Nuclear Option
    The nonsense from the Democrats over the judicial nominations continues. This morning, Senator Robert Byrd displays a phenomenal lack of either sanity or honestly in a Washington Post editoral. Political science professor Steven Taylor is none too impr…

    Trackback by Wizbang — Sunday, March 6, 2005 @ 9:48 am

  3. Miscellanea: The Virus Spreads Edition
    Steven Taylor has an excellent commentary on Senator Robert ‘The Conscience of the KKK’ Byrd and the Nuclear Option (hat tip to Outside the Beltway)…

    Trackback by Decision '08 — Sunday, March 6, 2005 @ 11:51 am

  4. Steven,
    Thanks this is the best thing I have seen posted on this. I have linked and I hope many people read it.

    Mark

    Comment by Mark — Sunday, March 6, 2005 @ 1:44 pm

  5. Many thanks!

    Comment by Steven Taylor — Sunday, March 6, 2005 @ 1:46 pm

  6. Robert Byrd: A History of Abuse of Congressional Power
    This week, the blogosphere buzzed with reaction to Senator Robert “Grand Wizard” Byrd’s comparison of…

    Trackback by Hennessy's View — Sunday, March 6, 2005 @ 1:55 pm


  7. I’ve been of two minds on the filibuster issue. On the one hand, I don’t like the idea of changing the parliamentary rules to gain a political advantage. After all, the Republican won’t always be the majority party, and precedent-setting steps like …

    Trackback by QandO — Sunday, March 6, 2005 @ 1:58 pm

  8. This is great stuff. We all know Byrd is senile but they us him as the constitutional guru for the handicapped. what has to be done is just go for it and get all these judicial appointments approved. We can see that with even some appointments made by presidents with a semi-conservative sway some of the choices backfired. Why do we think we have to use international law to justify changes(Kennedy appt. by Regan)in OUR constitution. This is why we have to go for it all so as to prevent missing a good applicant that will uphold OUR constitution. Thanks

    Comment by Willial Duffy — Sunday, March 6, 2005 @ 2:57 pm

  9. Fisking Byrd
    Steven Taylor has another great takedown of ex-KKK member and West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd. In particular, Steven vigorously dissects Byrd’s absurd claim that GOP efforts to prevent judicial nominees from being filibustered somehow violate free s…

    Trackback by ProfessorBainbridge.com — Sunday, March 6, 2005 @ 9:25 pm

  10. […] Post | home |
    3/6/2005

    Sunday political talk

    Dr. Steven Taylor has been in a state of high exercise over Sen. Robert Byrd’s hypocritical stance re: the changing of Sen […]

    Pingback by Arguing with signposts... » Sunday political talk — Monday, March 7, 2005 @ 12:11 am

  11. Steven, I wish I could remember the exact reference, but regarding this:

    I think that it will, in fact, feed to current perception amongst many in the public that the Democrats are the party of obstruction…

    My husband and I were talking this weekend about Democratic strategy and he noted that increasingly they seem to be painting themselves (and openly branding the party) as “the party in opposition”.

    I suppose the advantage is to make the RNC look like “those meanies” and them as the underdogs, but the obvious disadvantage is to point up that they seem to offer no ideas of their own and their only contribution to the problems facing this country these days sometimes seems to be denial, criticism, and obstruction.

    And that’s a shame, because there are Democrats with good ideas - they should be promoting those people within the party with fresh ideas. I don’t mind duking it out on the battleground of ideas - we will be a better country for fighting that battle. If we’re not engaged, both parties will stagnate - I don’t want to win by default because the other party is so busy trying to defeat us they aren’t debating our ideas.

    The RNC doesn’t have a monopoly on truth or righteousness - the Democrats have much to offer this country too. I hope no one wants a de facto one-party system.

    Comment by Cassandra — Monday, March 7, 2005 @ 6:08 am

  12. Cassanda,

    I wish they would behae like the party in oppostion, which should mean offering policy alternatives, not just obstructing the partyin power.

    ANd you are correct: there is much to be gained from an airing of ideas.

    Comment by Steven Taylor — Monday, March 7, 2005 @ 6:28 am

  13. Blogjam
    John Hawkins landed an interview with Michelle Malkin. Check it out. Damian at E-nough! is trying to break into the exclusive tinfoil hat club, but I have a feeling he’s not going to fit in. Just a hunch… Chris Matthews…

    Trackback by Villainous Company — Monday, March 7, 2005 @ 6:52 am

  14. Cassandra says: “And that’s a shame, because there are Democrats with good ideas - they should be promoting those people within the party with fresh ideas.“….

    Could you name a few of these Democrats please?

    Sen. Cornyn has the low-down of the ex-grand Kleagle: U.S. Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) had an op-ed in the Washington Post today (‘Nuking’ Free Speech, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5692-2005Mar3.html) arguing against the current Senate proposal to restore the rights of the majority and end the unprecedented filibusters against the President’s Judicial nominees. But his arguments were both factually wrong, and historically inconsistent with his own voting record.

    Comment by russ — Monday, March 7, 2005 @ 8:06 am


  15. Steven Taylor has Byrd for Sunday dinner: If the Democrats simply want a debate, then all they have to do is negotiate with Republicans and state that they will allow a vote once debate is complete, however long that may

    Trackback by What Attitude Problem? — Monday, March 7, 2005 @ 11:14 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

The trackback url for this post is: http://www.poliblogger.com/wp-trackback.php?p=6389

NOTE: I will delete any TrackBacks that do not actually link and refer to this post.

Leave a comment



Take a Look At This!
Inquiries
Blogroll


Visitors Since 2/15/03
---

PoliBlog is the Host site for:

A TTLB Community


Advertisement

Marketing cars
Office Linebacker
Baseball Shopping
Business Phones
Online Banking
Advertisement


Powered by WordPress