The LA Times Detonates Logic
The LA Times Detonates Logic
Yesterday, in an editorial entitled “Nuke it Already” the LA Times argues in favor of the nuclear option:
The filibuster, an arcane if venerable parliamentary tactic that empowers a minority of 41 senators to block a vote, goes above and beyond those checks on majority power legitimately written into the Constitution. The filibuster is an inherently reactionary instrument most famously used to block civil rights legislation for a generation.
Here’s the problem. The nuclear option doesn’t do anything to solve the issues the LA Times identified. After the nuclear option, reactionary Senators will still be able to filibuster progressive legislation, like the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Further, there is no indication that the nuclear option would lead to the total elimination of the filibuster. In fact, Majority Leader Frist and others leading the charge to detonate the nuclear option have specifically promised that filibuster ban will not extend to legislation. Here’s a statement by Frist on April 19:
[S]ome have claimed that any effort to restore precedent for up or down votes on judicial nominees would affect the rights of Senators when it comes to legislation…I will not act in any way to impact the rights of colleagues when it comes to legislation.
So let’s not kid ourselves: the nuclear option is not a step towards ensuring progressive legislation will clear the Senate. It is a partisan power play to pack the courts with reactionary judges.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Well, if they pull the trigger I hope they know that when we get back in power we’ll be naming the most radical liberals we can find to the federal courts and even Supreme Court and they can cry all they want.
May 19th, 2005 at 9:27 amI don’t see that happening. It seems to me that most progressives value “fairness” and not “revenge.” So, if Frist goes nuclear, I’d expect two things to happen:
1) Democrats re-take the majority – even in red states this bully BS won’t sell against a semi-viable challenger
2) The majority Democrats would re-instate the filibuster for judicial nominees. There’s no reason to operate under a broken system once you get the tools to fix it.
The stink of the nuclear option will cause all the republicans involved to retreat into obscurity (probably the basements of the think-tanks to dream-up some other ways to screw with the system), and not be electable for a generation.
Frist’s hopes of being President are dead – he has no chance (unless he personally saves a busload of kids from being eaten by a dragon, or something like that…)
May 19th, 2005 at 10:04 amYou know, I’m going to risk being seriously flamed by saying that I disagree with the fundamental premise of the LA Times argument — namely, that the availability of the filibuster to slow down civil rights legislation was necessarily a bad thing.
OK, let me be quite clear upfront: The Senators who filibustered against civil rights legislation were wrong on the merits — hateful bigots, even. They personally deserve all the ignominy we can heap upon them.
But thinking about the filibuster as an institution, if it can be called that, I’m not so sure it was a bad thing. That is, just like I believe that the lifetime appointment of a federal judge is a big enough step that one should have to get a 60-vote (or perhaps more) supermajority to do it, I think that certain legislative initiatives are significant enough — are big enough sea changes in the landscape — that requiring a supermajority can also be a good idea. And I think you could make a strong case that civil rights legislation fell into that category, and maybe it wasn’t such a bad thing that it wait until you could get a solid 60-vote majority in the Senate.
Now, I realize that the suffering of those who had to await the formation of this supermajority was severe, and I don’t mean to minimize it. But it seems to me the fault lies with the Senators who refused to do the right thing — not with the concept of the filibuster itself.
May 19th, 2005 at 10:09 amPut another way: a rule that requires a 60-vote supermajority can block bad legislation just as much as good. The only thing “inherent” about the filibuster is that it makes it more difficult to pass legislation — which is itself morally neutral (unless you believe that legislation is per se a good thing). To state, as the LA Times did, that the filibuster is ‘inherently reactionary” is simply a bizarre statement.
May 19th, 2005 at 10:55 amThis is a fantastic rebuttal. I hope that CAP will submit a letter to the LA Times calling them on their simple-mindedness.
May 19th, 2005 at 11:11 amThe focus of the Dems would be better spent in coming up with presentable candidates for office, to stop demanding huge tax increases, start being honest with young voters about the SS abyss, and to leave the gay marriage issue alone.
Flamboyant gay men freshly married, kissing on the courthouse steps, played over and over again in the days leading up to the election, did great harm to the Dems.
This trivial discussion about filibuster tactics is like talking about new paint while the house burns down.
May 19th, 2005 at 11:11 amAnalogies are great aren’t they. Reagan, King Bush AWOL’s dad, and Dick ” Saddam is no danger to america Cheney” and the neocons supplied Saddam with money, intelligence, bio-chemicals to manufacture weapons, used European front companies to do business with him to get around the Clinton era sanctions. Then tell us to send our sons, daughters, fathers, husbands and wives to get rid of the monster they created. Its like they burned down your house and now they want credit for trying to rebuild it with your money.
Dick Cheney, father of a lesbian I believe, came out for gay rights during the election, but since the elections over that just becomes another day, another flip flopping lie for Dick Deferment Cheney and his cowardly sidekick George Crazy Alcoholic Bush.
“In 1996 Clinton nominated Judge Richard Paez to the 9th Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals. Conservatives in Congress held up Paez’s nomination for more than four years, culminating in an attempted filibuster on March 8, 2000. Bill Frist was among those who voted to filibuster Paez.”
“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” -James Madison
May 19th, 2005 at 11:53 am“Flamboyant gay men freshly married, kissing on the courthouse steps, played over and over again in the days leading up to the election, did great harm to the Dems.”
And it sounds like you’re completely obsessed with this fact, buckshot. Seems every post of yours these days has some type of reference to gay issues. Flamboyant gay men kissing after their marriage is no different than the blushing bride/groom on the Cathedral steps.
Start posting something fresh and valid…
May 19th, 2005 at 1:04 pmAgreed. The homophobia of the right is comical. When are they going to get past it to a place where everyone can be treated equally?
May 19th, 2005 at 1:11 pmYea you are correct. Buckshot, you comments are increasingly worthless. They don’t advance discussion, they frequently don’t address the topic of the thread. Why don’t you GET A JOB?
May 19th, 2005 at 1:54 pmTheresa,
I mentioned it because the Dems don’t seem to understand what the majority of Americans find important in the “family values” arena.
You may not see any difference between flambouyant gay men kissing on the news and “blushing bride kissing groom”, but that just makes my point. The VAST majority of Americans DO see a difference. A BIG difference.
Thank you for reinforcing my point.
Russ,
Whether the “right” is homophobic or not is a matter of opinion. I suppose many of them are. My point exactly. When the “progressives” start to understand how the majority of Americans feel about these important issues, then Dems have a chance of again of success on election day.
You may not read polls, but if you pay attention you will find that about 90% of Americans believe in God and at least two thirds do NOT believe gay men should be getting married.
Digest that. If you can’t digest that simple fact, you will just have to spend your life wondering why everyone can’t “just be treated equally”.
You are not facing reality.
Kindness,
Another flame? Is that all you’ve got? In answer to your question – I don’t need one.
May 19th, 2005 at 2:14 pmInvoking The Nuclular Option
May 19th, 2005 at 2:59 pmJudd at Think Progress is correct, the nucular option is not an attempt to move things along.So let’s not kid ourselves: the nuclear option is not a step towards ensuring progressive legislation will clear the Senate. It is a partisan
The Democrats weren’t the ones to bring up gay marriage in the first place.
May 19th, 2005 at 4:12 pmCasey,
Whomever brought up gay marriage first is trivial.
The fact is, mainstream America is STRONGLY AGAINST gay marriage.
Mainstream America put Bush back in office, and handed him a majority in both houses.
THAT is what’s important. Don’t get sidetracked.
May 19th, 2005 at 5:16 pmspeaking of getting sidetracked, this thread was about L A Times editorial about nuclear option. it seems buckshot suffers from attention deficit disorder, as he has a very hard time staying on topic no matter what the thread is about.
May 21st, 2005 at 3:50 pmAl,
Your choice of topic is to discuss buckshot. (rather than the thread topic)
You have the choice as an adult with (presumably) some self restraint – to not read any posts by me.
Yet you do read my posts – not only do you take the time to consciously read them, but then you spend more time responding to them.
Doesn’t make sense, does it?
May 22nd, 2005 at 10:24 pmmauvais traitements breast torture
Think Progress »…
October 27th, 2005 at 12:12 am