Byrd on the Nuclear Option
March 1, 2005 4:52 PM   Subscribe

Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) on the "nuclear option." "The Senate is intended for deliberation not point scoring. It is a place designed from its inception, as expressive of minority views." As the Senate gears up for another round of contentious judicial confirmations, and as Washington gears up for all-out war following Rehnquist's imminent retirement, here's an eloquent, if Godwin-invoking, defense of deliberative lawmaking from the Senate's preeminent historian.
posted by Saucy Intruder (38 comments total)
 
After reading, "Losing America" by Senator Byrd, I wrote him a letter saying that I wish I lived in his state merely so that I could have the privilege of voting for him.

If more Democrats had his courage, that party wouldn't be circling the drain right now.
posted by leftcoastbob at 5:03 PM on March 1, 2005


Not a lot of comments here? I guess there isn't a lot to debate in what he said. But yet, Senator Frist from my home state of Tennessee could care less about history, courage and deliberation. He just wants his shit passed.
posted by UseyurBrain at 5:24 PM on March 1, 2005


i agree more democrats should have byrd's courage to speak truth to power; i disagree that the party is circling the drain. was the republican party circling the drain for the decades they were out of power in the house and senate?

it's rhetoric like that that gives those who'd like to see opposition parties go away a clearer path to unfettered power. it's adopting their rhetoric because it's repeated with such atrocious frequency.

does anyone really think opposition to republican policies is simply going to disappear? if so, well, buck up, little camper! it's going to be alright.

and please, may i strike a preemptive blow against any potential derails that involve some dumb invocation of byrd's racist past? please?

i'm very curious to know what the conservative mefi position is on this, because as they know, history cuts both ways. and god knows we don't want them to ever circle the drain.

we need them, you see. for teh funny.
posted by Hat Maui at 5:27 PM on March 1, 2005


Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtan
Ia! Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn
Senator Byrd's Racism...

...eh? what's that?
my invocation of preemptive blow preemption failed you say?

blasted blog magicks...DAMN YOU MAUI!
posted by jungturk at 6:03 PM on March 1, 2005


Justices Breyer and Ginsberg vote in favor of any left-wing proposition brought before them, regardless of its legal or constitutional merit. This prediliction was easily predictable when they were nominated by President Clinton in 1993 and 1994, and yet the Senate Republicans, then in minority, didn't filibuster, not because they couldn't under current rules, but because they recognized that this would be an inappropriate abuse of the power by the minority.

The Republican Senate did obstruct some Clinton appointees in 1995 throught 2000, but that was when they were in the majority and didn't have any need of recourse to the filibuster. Majoritarian obstruction is perfectly in line with advice and consent.

The Democrat use of the filibuster in 2003 and 2004 to prevent floor votes on Bush's appointees was an outrageous and unprecedented incursion on the prerogatives of the majority, and if the nuclear option is required to put them back into observance of the traditional restraint on filibustering, so be it.
posted by MattD at 6:12 PM on March 1, 2005


That said, the fall of Tom Daschle is very instructive to Democratic Senators in Republican-leaning states. The four Southern Democratic Senators, Senator Nelson and Senator Salazar are going to tread quite carefully on this issue, and might end up on the side of right.
posted by MattD at 6:16 PM on March 1, 2005


That's a great speech. I wish I could have heard it being delivered.

It's so well thought out that it's very hard to write about. He said it better than I ever could. I can't think of a single thing to add.

Hard fto imagine how one could assemble a coherent counter-argument.

On preview... well, I'll be. Matt, you really think that the short-term gain is worth the long-term problems?

When I was a kid in school, we asked over and over again "How could people have allowed someone like Hitler to do what he did? How could that possibly happen?" And nobody was able to give us clear examples.

Sadly, I now understand it. People aren't just unafraid of the abuse of power, they WELCOME it. If it'll solve some short-term problem they've been told about, they're gung-ho about sacrificing permanent liberties.

They don't just let themselves be chained, they put the manacles on their own wrists and smile the whole time.
posted by Malor at 6:23 PM on March 1, 2005


The Republican Senate did obstruct some Clinton appointees in 1995 throught 2000

a rare moment of understatement.
two words: Jesse Helms.
posted by matteo at 6:23 PM on March 1, 2005


The Bush administration has a history of seeing accomodation and compromise as weakness. The democrats seem to have snapped out of the desire to cooperate with an opposition that would sooner see them dead. And it's about time.
posted by Space Coyote at 6:24 PM on March 1, 2005


Justices Breyer and Ginsberg vote in favor of any left-wing proposition brought before them, regardless of its legal or constitutional merit.

I wasn't aware that petitions for cert now have to be graded on the left-right axis.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 6:29 PM on March 1, 2005


Everyone is aware Byrd used the filibuster in 1964 in attempt to block the Civil Rights amendment? Right?

This is beyond idiotic. The man who attempted to block the Civil Rights Act lectures others on the filibuster's moral usage? Jesus!
posted by TetrisKid at 6:29 PM on March 1, 2005


Ending Democrat abuse of the filibuster isn't the slippery slope to tyranny, it is simply restoring the status quo of January 2, 2003. Routine filibustering of judicial nominees is an unprecedented abuse of Senate rules, brought to being not out of respect for Senate privileges but out of Democrat sore loserdom and out of touch liberal elitism.
posted by MattD at 6:46 PM on March 1, 2005


That's a great speech. I wish I could have heard it being delivered.

Have you seen Byrd deliver a speech recently? It ain't that pretty.
posted by pardonyou? at 6:54 PM on March 1, 2005


MattD, the Republican blocking of Clinton's nominees wasn't majoritarian. The nominees weren't voted down -- they were prevented from ever coming to a vote in the first place, sometimes by a rule enabling a single senator to block ("blue-slip") a nominee. After Bush was elected, the Republicans conveniently changed the rules to eliminate that method of opposing appointments, leaving the Democrats with the filibuster as the only method. It's a hell of a lot more reasonable and majoritarian to block nominations that outrage 41 senators than to block nominations that outrage 1.
posted by Axaxaxas Mlö at 7:00 PM on March 1, 2005


Remind me again why I should pay any attention to Senator Byrd (D-WV), a former Ku Klux Klan member.
posted by republican at 7:44 PM on March 1, 2005


This is beyond idiotic. The man who attempted to block the Civil Rights Act lectures others on the filibuster's moral usage? Jesus!

So I guess the answer to Hat Maui's question of "may i strike a preemptive blow against any potential derails that involve some dumb invocation of byrd's racist past?" is "No," then. Ok.

I think you raise a very good point, TetrisKid. I was just thinking, "You know, this guy's speech is impressive and all, but what he's saying is that even people I don't agree with deserve to have their voices heard. And I just can't abide by that."

You see, the whole point is that it doesn't matter what side of an issue you argue for. It matters that you can argue for it.

Yes, he was wrong to vote against that. At the time so was a lot of the country. A whole lot of the country is still wrong on civil rights issues. But arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to speak is arguing for fascism.

Voltaire: "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." More than words to live by, words to vote by.
posted by shmegegge at 8:02 PM on March 1, 2005


As Media Matters points out, filibustering of judicial nominees isn’t “unprecedented” – Senate Republicans filibustered LBJ’s appointment of Abe Fortas as Chief Justice of SCOTUS in 1968.
posted by hilker at 8:03 PM on March 1, 2005


By any means necessary, eh, MattD?
posted by pmurray63 at 8:26 PM on March 1, 2005


and please, may i strike a preemptive blow against any potential derails that involve some dumb invocation of byrd's racist past? please?

Too late, Hat Maui.
posted by blucevalo at 8:38 PM on March 1, 2005


As Media Matters points out, filibustering of judicial nominees isn’t “unprecedented” – Senate Republicans filibustered LBJ’s appointment of Abe Fortas as Chief Justice of SCOTUS in 1968.

Anyone who thinks that filibustering is a sign of "liberal elitism" is not going to care, I'd hazard to guess, what Media Matters has to say about much of anything.
posted by blucevalo at 8:42 PM on March 1, 2005


The filibuster isn't a left or right issue it's a Constitutional issue. It's just that Byrd should be the very last person on earth to make the points he was making.
posted by TetrisKid at 9:05 PM on March 1, 2005


So when did "advice and consent" become such a complicated thing? It would seem so simple: have a vote and majority rules but I guess some people don't respect the Constitution.
posted by gyc at 10:05 PM on March 1, 2005


"That said, the fall of Tom Daschle is very instructive to Democratic Senators in Republican-leaning states."

Yep: When the majority leader of the Senate personally campaigns against the minority leader in an outrageous and unprecedented incursion on the unspoken rules of that chamber, you might just lose.

"It would seem so simple: have a vote and majority rules but I guess some people don't respect the Constitution."

Except that is pretty much counter to what Byrd's speech was saying. The Senate isn't supposed to be as politicized as the House and due to longer terms should be a much more deliberative body.

And, when the Republicans were not in power, i'm sure they didn't 'respect the Constitution' by your definition either.

Hell, the filibuster is the only thing left that resembles true governing at this point (rather than the rubber stamping party that is going on between the Congress and president). If Frist goes nuclear, the Republicans should realize that this change in rules could be used against them when they lose control of the Senate.
posted by UseyurBrain at 10:32 PM on March 1, 2005


It would seem so simple: have a vote and majority rules

The Senate did have a vote: to adopt the rules that make a filibuster possible. And, whaddayaknow, the majority ruled on that vote.

As a continuing body that doesn't disappear every 2 years like the House, the Senate isn't required to adopt a set of rules de novo every session; IIRC the last time the rules were formally adopted (in the form of a general revision) was 1979.

Even so, the rules can be formally changed -- by majority rule, even -- through the procedures in the rules for amending the rules. Informally, the rules can be effectively changed through points-of-order.

The Republicans can get these people through *anytime they want to* by suppressing filibusters through a point-of-order process. They don't do this presumably because they know just how much of a bitch payback will be next time there's a Democratic Senate and President.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:35 PM on March 1, 2005


For an exhaustive history of the filibuster and an argument in favor of changing Senate rules, see this recent article (warning: very large PDF).
posted by amber_dale at 10:52 PM on March 1, 2005


Ending Democrat abuse of the filibuster isn't the slippery slope to tyranny, it is simply restoring the status quo of January 2, 2003. Routine filibustering of judicial nominees is an unprecedented abuse of Senate rules, brought to being not out of respect for Senate privileges but out of Democrat sore loserdom and out of touch liberal elitism.

What a pile of completely unsubstantiated knee-jerk horse shit.
posted by shmegegge at 12:12 AM on March 2, 2005


You see, the whole point is that it doesn't matter what side of an issue you argue for. It matters that you can argue for it.

nobody is suggesting you can't make your argument, but there's no reason your argument should go on forever. make your point and move on.
posted by acclivus at 3:04 AM on March 2, 2005


The dems are playing with fire. The voting public doesn't much care for this kind of grand standing (see Gingrich, Newt).
posted by Mick at 5:04 AM on March 2, 2005


Scmegegge -- judicial nominees were filibustered on at most a few occasions in the entire history of the Senate before January 2003, and thereafter have been filibustered some dozen times with more threatened. Why don't you look up "routine" and "unprecedented" and check back with me.

What the minority Democrat Senators have been doing has nothing in common with what the majority Republican Senators did with Clinton's nominees. The only fair analogy is with what the minority Republican Senators did in 1993 and 1994 with Clinton appointees -- and the answer is, they did not use the filibuster to stop them from coming up to votes. The Democrats have upped the ante here, and they'd better be prepared to lose the hand.
posted by MattD at 5:40 AM on March 2, 2005


The Republicans didn't use the filibuster because they had other methods of blocking the nominees. Now that they're in power and the president is a Republican, they've changed the rules and eliminated those other options. Now they're outraged that the Democrats are using the only option left to them to stand in way of the rubber-stamping, even though it affects only a minuscule fraction of Bush's appointees. Nothing less than a Saddam-like 100% approval is acceptable.

It's humorous to watch how people like Hatch, who blocked nominations for years and refused to let them come up for an up- or-down vote, turn on a dime as soon as Bush was elected and suddenly start decrying the very practices he embraced.
posted by Axaxaxas Mlö at 6:29 AM on March 2, 2005


George Will.

I'm not a fan, but he makes the universal point--Repugs might get what they want short term, but they won't be in charge forever. Payback's a bitch, to say the least.
posted by bardic at 7:57 AM on March 2, 2005


Actually, MattD, go back and count the GOP filibusters between 1990 and 1994, when Dems were in the majority (and there was even a GOP president for part of the time).
posted by lexalexander at 8:03 AM on March 2, 2005


Regarding Byrd on the Civil Rights issue ...

Are we to believe that Byrd is a leopard and that leopards cannot change their spots? If so, why are we constantly -- especially on MeFi -- telling purported leopards that they can and should change their spots, whatever their spots may be?

I believe the man has changed. He's not the man he used to be. He has grown. And I'll take growth over standing firm on unjust convictions any day of the week.
posted by Possum at 8:42 AM on March 2, 2005


MattD, your textbook on american history would be one of the funniest things to read, please get cracking on it.
It could serve as an example of the dangers of utter complacency in GOP leadership.

"Majoritarian obstruction is perfectly in line with advice and consent."

Right, so fuck the country's management, the best advice is to ruin the system rather than allow it to go on under another's leadership.

Is there any advice the Congress is putting forward other than 'Democrats should lie down and die.'?
posted by Busithoth at 9:25 AM on March 2, 2005


MattD:

Sorry, but rearranging the criteria to classify within your ignorant original comment after the fact doesn't make you right.

Ok, so as I understand it, you don't have a problem with filibustering to block an appointment. You also don't have a problem with minority filibustering. Or majority filibustering. Or filibustering of any kind to block anything that isn't a supreme court appointment.

You only have a problem with a minority party filibustering to block a supreme court appointment, right? Or is it that you only have a problem with it if they do it more than once?

I mean, I looked up routine, and this hasn't happened at regular intervals or anything like that. So much for routine. And as has been documented already it's not unprecedented. So I'm trying really hard to figure out exactly what your criteria for outrage are.

I suspect that the criterion you haven't mentioned is the "They're doing it to my boy," criterion. Seriously, read up on the legislative process in this country and get back to me.
posted by shmegegge at 1:06 PM on March 2, 2005


Payback's a bitch, to say the least.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Yeah, great. Payback is well and good. So 25-50 years from now we can repair the damage they are doing today? Come on. Get real. We need to stop as much of this as we can now.
posted by graventy at 2:10 PM on March 2, 2005


"The voting public doesn't much care for this kind of grand standing"

grand standing? It's called governing. That thing that Bush does with the House and Senate is NOT governing.
posted by UseyurBrain at 4:12 PM on March 2, 2005


Part of me feels like "God damn it, this is about protecting Roe v Wade and trying to prevent the ban on same sex marriage across the country. Fuck yeah, I want those justices filibustered."

Then part of me feels like I can't let my personal beliefs on the issues cloud the legislative process.

Then this article reminds me that what's happening now is precisely what the Senate was designed for. Good on the Senate. Good on Byrd, despite his past. To hell with the people who instated the blue slip rule during Clinton and relaxed it during Bush and now want to silence the deliberative portion of our government to their own ends.
posted by shmegegge at 5:10 PM on March 2, 2005


« Older Man, those things are OLD!   |   Cage Match: Gravity Leakage vs. Dark Matter Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments