Should the Senate Continue to Filibuster... stopping Up or Down Votes on Judicial Appointments ? Just ask Dr James Dobson.

Obviously, this is a very political post.  And, as is the case on any of the "political posts" I write... ALL viewpoints are welcome.

Also, as is typical on my posts... those who comment are welcome to go back and forth with those others who comment... with whom they disagree.

If you have an opinion... let's have it be part of an ongoing dialogue.

Jeff at Connecticut:  I really enjoyed your comment on the use of the Senate Filibuster.  Thanks so much for adding to the discussion.

Silvia:  That... the problem... and that is also why I wrote this post... to focus on that very point.

Here is more of an explanation.  back in the mid-2000's... as Dale Terry of Home Realty Group in comment #5 said... the opposite of what is happening now... was going on.  Bush was President, and the Republicans also "controlled" the Senate... which meant they had more than fifty Senators out of the 100 Senators in the Senate.

So... it might look like Bush and the Republicans could do whatever they wanted.  That is where the filibuster comes in.  One might re-name the filibuster with the phrase "full of bluster."  What it means is that when one side is outnumbered... that is, it has 49 or fewer Senators... if they voted on the bill... whatever it was... they would lose.  All the bill needs is 51 votes out of 100 to pass.

Well... the minority party could also stall taking the vote... by demanding that there be further debate.  And only when the debate is over... THEN they would vote.  But... the minority party could choose to "debate" for the rest of the year... just keep on talking... if they wanted to.  And, when they have done this... it usually is not even a debate... but just an endless line of minority Senators standing at the podium, and talking.

The Senate could vote on stopping the filibuster... but instead of needing 51 votes, they need to get SIXTY votes to stop the debate.  Doing that... is called voting for "Cloture."  That would stop the debate, and the vote on the bill, or in this case, on the judges... would have to be taken.

In the case mentioned in comment #5... Bush nominated something like seventy judges.  The majority of them were voted on... but there were TEN... the ones mentioned in #5... that the Democrats felt were much too extremely Conservative, so they chose to block those TEN out of the entire group nominated... by using the filibuster technique.

So... Bush got the great majority approved, but had TEN blocked.  Pretty good average.

Currently, President Obama has put forth a group of 84 to be voted on.  The great majority of them have been unanimously approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee... which is made up by both Republicans and Democrats.  Unanimously approved. 

But... would the Republicans pick the most liberal ones... and hold THEM up, and allow a vote on the more MODERATE judges nominated ?  That sounds logical.

Noper.  The Republicans are using the filibuster to block EVERY SINGLE JUDGE from being voted on.  Every one.

For the current group of Republicans... there is no longer any such thing as a "compromise."  They have vowed to do everything possible to make Obama look inept... and not allowing a vote on ANY of these 84 judges just makes a mockery out of the judicial system.

Sorry for being long-winded.  I am somewhat of a political and news junkie.  Although I do not know as much as some on Active Rain... like Ted Baker, for instance... I know enough to make a case and explain some things.  Thanks for your patience in reading this.

Hugh:  Thank you.  Silvia:  You are very welcome.  It's the former teacher in me.

Eric:  I do what I can with my meager talents.  <dorky smile>  Yes... the current judiciary system IS a mess.  Right now, because of a small group of anal-retentive Republicans who continue to threaten the rest of their Republican legislators in office with them... to keep them all in lock-step.  So... nothing gets done.

Clarence Thomas.  Recuse himself ?  Are you kidding.  That would take ethics, and he was absent for much of that day.  Clarence Thomas should NEVER have been approved as a Supreme Court Justice in the first place... but you know what they say about hindsight.

Compromise is a dead word.  When Bush was in office, the Democrats compromised on many things.  They, of course, did that... assuming that when the situation would be reversed... that they could expect reasonable compromises from the Republicans.  Dumb move on their part.  Boehner, McConnell, Coburn, Cantor, Ryan Paul, Bachmann and the rest will not move a muscle.

Unfortunately, I cannot believe what you say, and hope for... in "what goes around, comes around."  The Republicans have the "brass ones" to do whatever they want.  The Democrats do not.  They blink.

Rich:  I cannot remember EVER agreeing with James Dobson before, either.  That is part of the irony of this post.  The other half of the IRONY is that this video was made during the Bush administration... when all the Conservatives... the folks in the video, and all of the Republicans in Congress were so AGAINST the idea that Democrats would even consider using the filibuster to block confirmation of a judicial appointment.

Now... they ALL want to use it against those same judicial appointments.  Disingenuous Boneheads !