Media Matters has an interesting list of common misconceptions about the filibuster. I think Media Matters does an excellent job with their site and research. I couldn't imagine the time and patience their staff puts into the site. And, yes, it is a bi-partisan site for all you who cry liberal everytime you see or read something you don't agree with.
Since judicial nominations are really going to heat up this week, I thought it would be important to link to and paste an abridged version of the list (which I'm probably not supposed to). Mainly, the list highlights the most common inaccurate arguments used in the current discussion by the mainstream media and others . Whether you agree or disagree with the current happenings of the judicial filibuster, I think it's important for anyone participating or ranting about it to read this list. The list in its entirety can be found here.
Falsehood #1: Democrats' filibuster of Bush nominees is "unprecedented"
"It is important to realize that it has not been unusual for the Senate to indicate its lack of approval for a nomination by just making sure that it never came to a vote on the merits. As I said, 21 nominations to the court have failed to win Senate approval. But only nine of that number were rejected on a direct, up-and-down vote," Griffin said, according to a May 10 New York Times op-ed by former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (D-ME).
Republicans attempted to filibuster the nomination of U.S. District Judge H. Lee Sarokin to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1994. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), who is leading the Republican opposition to Democratic filibusters, voted against cloture for the Paez nomination.
The Republican-controlled Senate blocked approximately 60 Clinton nominees through other means. This included strict enforcement under Clinton of the "blue slip" policy, which at the time allowed a senator from a nominee's home state to block a nominee simply by failing to turn in the blue-colored approval papers required for the nomination process.
The qualifier that a nominee reach the Senate floor disregards the approximately 60 Clinton nominees whom the Republican-led Senate blocked in committee. The qualifier that the filibuster be ultimately successful gets around Republican efforts to filibuster Paez and Berzon, who eventually won Senate confirmation.
Falsehood #2: Bush's filibustered nominees have all been rated well-qualified by the ABA; blocking such highly rated nominees is unprecedented
10 Bush nominees filibustered by Senate Democrats, only three -- Owen, Miguel Estrada, and David McKeague -- received a unanimous "Well Qualified" rating from the ABA. Conservatives have frequently touted Janice Rogers Brown as highly qualified (see Rush Limbaugh and Rev. Jerry Falwell), but she twice received an "Unqualified" rating from the California judicial evaluation committee and currently has the ABA's lowest "passing" rating of Qm/NQmin (meaning a majority consider her "Qualified" and a minority consider her "Not Qualified").
Falsehood #3: Democratic obstructionism has led to far more judicial vacancies during Republican administrations than Democratic administrations
Falsehood #4: "Nuclear Option" is a Democratic term
Following the Republicans' lead, many major media outlets have attributed the term "nuclear option" as a creation of Senate Democrats. In fact, Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS), one of the proposed measures' leading advocates, actually coined the term.
Falsehood #5: Democrats oppose Bush nominees because of their faith, race, ethnicity, gender, stance on abortion, stance on parental notification ...
Falsehood #6: Public opinion polling shows clear opposition to judicial filibusters, support for "nuclear option"
Falsehood #7: Filibustering judicial nominees is unconstitutional
Falsehood #8: Clinton's appellate confirmation rate was far better than Bush's rate
Falsehood #9: Sen. Byrd's alterations to filibuster rules set precedent for "nuclear option"
Falsehood #10: Democrats have opposed "all" or "most" of Bush's judicial nominees
###
All credit to Media Matters. It's worth the click just to see the entire list with the research supporting it.
5.23.2005
The Top 10 Filibuster Falsehoods
Posted by Chris at 7:42 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Hymer:
Thanks for reading.
Media Matters is extremely bi-partisan. They are not politically inclined one way or another. They focus on facts, not Party.
An article about Bush that you might not agree with does not make it partisan or for that matter anti-Bush.
I clicked over to the main page to have another look, and the two main articles on the page are the list of filibuster falsehoods (which I link to) and one slamming the Washington Post for repeating a false claim.
None are anti-Bush, anti-conservative, anti-Republican or anything else you mention.
The Washington Post is one of the most left-leaning newspapers in print. And yet, Media Matters is slamming it for not being honest.
Your contention is weak to say the least.
Again, as soon as someone doesn't agree with something, they immediately have to call it liberal or dishonest, or evilize it, or whip out the "anti-" prefix.
I think you prove my point pretty well.
Thanks again.
Also Hymer, instead of focusing on the messenger, I would be interested in which of the 10 falsehoods listed on Media Matters is anti-Conservative, Anti-Republican and/or Anti-Bush?
Or is just the site in general that you don't like, which prompts you not to read the list?
Just a question.
Thanks for paying me a comment. Hope I don't sound too harsh on ya. It's just late and I'm cranky.
Thanks again old man :)
Thanks for being a good sport Hymer. As much as I pick on you, you just keep coming back. I always enjoy the conversation.
I do disagree with your evaluation of the Washington Post article on Media Matters. I think Media Matters is slamming both the commentators and the Post. And I think Media Matters is slamming the Post much harder because they are allowing the falsehoods to be repeated within their publication.
And I still contend that Media Matters is bi-partisan (actually non-partisan is the better word, but I goofed that up on my original post) because they have absolutely no Party affiliation whatsoever. In the same regards, Bill O'Reilly is also bi-partisan (non-partisan) because afterall he is an independent, or so he claims.
Being bi-partisan/non-partisan doesn't mean that one is totally unbiased or objective, it can mean just the opposite sometimes.
As for the filibuster, I do agree with you sort of. I do believe it is an obstructionist form of action. What I do disagree with is how the Republicans are framing it. This "against people of faith," moral values crap has to stop.
I think the Republican crying game over the filibuster demonstrates the hypocrisy of the Party. It's okay when they do it, and they did it much, much more often, but it's not okay when someone else does it.
I call it political karma.
For several reasons Taylor
1. Judicial nominees are appointed for life and their decisions final (in the case of Supreme Court nominees) without a constitutional amendment.
The appointment of such judges or justices, and the precedents they establish should not be subject to the passions of a select few or a bare majority. The constitution protects all of us and the justices therefore speak for all of us.
Courtpacking initiatives would have undermined our confidence in the courts and in the constitution itself.
2. If the nuclear option passed, the president would have gained in power over the Courts and the legislature. It's easier for the president to push his agenda through majority vote than to be forced to deal with king-makers in the senate.
3. The Republicans won in practice what they merely conceded in principle.
Good job Heretic. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Thanks Taylor for commenting. I think you make some good points and I'll agree with it all, if and when the Republicans are the minority party and then want to do away with the filibuster. I doubt the Republicans would support their current behavior if and when that's the case.
Thanks to both for reading.
Well their life tenure serves two purposes:
1. They are not beholden to the people, the ones who appointed them, or any group in particular.
2. Their life tenure promotes stability in constitutional jurisprudence. You'll have less back and forth between conservative and liberal judges (and consequently, less back and forth between conservative and liberal opinions) by keeping them in there.
Life time appointments are not perfect remedies as we have seen from this last showdown, but just imagine what would happen if the Supreme Court revisisted its cases every 3 or 4 years.
Post a Comment