Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Filibuster flip-flops
The whole point about a constitution is to guarantee that proceedings and the legislative process in a democracy runs smoothly. The lack of proper constitutional restraints on Congress plays a big part in the conundrum that has evolved over the filibuster. Because politicians change their positions to adapt to current events and political trends it is important to tie down the ways in which they can obstruct or overturn inherent democratic rights. It didn't go so well with the Patriot Act (but, oh, how I would love to see a case before the SC on the application of the fifth amendment).
If the Patriot Act got the Republicans racing like cattle in a stampede, the filibuster issue certainly has made the Democrats flock around any media outlet available as if it was a buffet table on Madison Avenue.
And the flip-flopping is remarkable. (To be fair though, even Madison changed his stance on the Bill of Rights after som heavy influences from the correspondance with Jefferson over in Paris.)
Here are some samples that I have found:
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA)Then:
"According to the U.S. Constitution, the President nominates, and the Senate shall provide advice and consent. It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor." (Congressional Record, May 14, 1997)
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA)Now:
"So we're saying we think you ought to get nine votes over the 51 required. That isn't too much to ask for such a super important position. There ought to be a super vote. Don't you think so?" (Remarks at MoveOn.org rally in Washington, March 16, 2005)
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Then:
"I also plead with my colleagues to move judges with alacrity--vote them up or down. But this delay makes a mockery of the Constitution, makes a mockery of the fact that we are here working, and makes a mockery of the lives of very sincere people who have put themselves forward to be judges and then they hang out there in limbo." (Congressional Record, March 7, 2000)
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Now:
"We will invoke every rule in the Senate that we can, without standing in the way of vitally needed programs, to show the people who put it in power that they cannot just by fiat undo 200 years of American history." (Fox News' "Special Report," April 21, 2005)
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Then:
"The Constitution is clear that only individuals acceptable to both the President and the Senate should be confirmed. The President and the Senate do not always agree. But we should resolve these disagreements by voting on these nominees--yes or no." (Congressional Record, Jan. 28, 1998)
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Now:
"But what has not ended is the resolution and the determination of the members of the United States Senate to continue to resist any Neanderthal that is nominated by this President of the United States for any . . . federal court in the United States." (CNN's "Inside Politics," Nov. 14, 2003)
If the Patriot Act got the Republicans racing like cattle in a stampede, the filibuster issue certainly has made the Democrats flock around any media outlet available as if it was a buffet table on Madison Avenue.
And the flip-flopping is remarkable. (To be fair though, even Madison changed his stance on the Bill of Rights after som heavy influences from the correspondance with Jefferson over in Paris.)
Here are some samples that I have found:
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA)Then:
"According to the U.S. Constitution, the President nominates, and the Senate shall provide advice and consent. It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor." (Congressional Record, May 14, 1997)
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA)Now:
"So we're saying we think you ought to get nine votes over the 51 required. That isn't too much to ask for such a super important position. There ought to be a super vote. Don't you think so?" (Remarks at MoveOn.org rally in Washington, March 16, 2005)
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Then:
"I also plead with my colleagues to move judges with alacrity--vote them up or down. But this delay makes a mockery of the Constitution, makes a mockery of the fact that we are here working, and makes a mockery of the lives of very sincere people who have put themselves forward to be judges and then they hang out there in limbo." (Congressional Record, March 7, 2000)
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Now:
"We will invoke every rule in the Senate that we can, without standing in the way of vitally needed programs, to show the people who put it in power that they cannot just by fiat undo 200 years of American history." (Fox News' "Special Report," April 21, 2005)
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Then:
"The Constitution is clear that only individuals acceptable to both the President and the Senate should be confirmed. The President and the Senate do not always agree. But we should resolve these disagreements by voting on these nominees--yes or no." (Congressional Record, Jan. 28, 1998)
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Now:
"But what has not ended is the resolution and the determination of the members of the United States Senate to continue to resist any Neanderthal that is nominated by this President of the United States for any . . . federal court in the United States." (CNN's "Inside Politics," Nov. 14, 2003)
