The official blog of the Libertarian Party
May 10, 2005
Both Republicans and Democrats support the filibuster when it suits them
By Matthew Dailey
Senate Republicans' attempts to abolish filibusters against judicial nominees have generated a great deal of media coverage in recent weeks. They are calling for a forced up-or-down vote in the Senate, a practice that is increasingly being called the "nuclear option."
As usual in the current political climate, the Democrats and Republicans are portraying each other as unreasonable.
The Republican National Committee Web site claims Democrats "have become the party of obstructionism and double standards." Republicans say they are just looking for a "fair" up-and-down vote for the president's "qualified" judicial nominees.
In the Republicans' view, Democrats are only opposing Bush's nominees because of petty partisan politics. They say the Senate has a long history of giving judicial nominees an up-or-down vote, and they accuse the Democrats of not performing their "constitutional obligation."
But nowhere is it written in the Constitution that judicial nominees must receive an up-and-down vote in the Senate.
On the Democratic National Committee Web site, Democrats are portraying the Republicans as "pandering to extremists." The Democrats are opposing the nuclear option because they feel Bush's judicial nominees will "roll back equality, liberty, and individual rights of all Americans."
It appears the Democratic Party wants to protect individual liberty, now that it is politically expedient for them. They claim the Republicans are the ones violating the Constitution and Senate tradition.
According to the DNC Web site, the Senate has approved 95 percent of Bush's judicial nominees, opposing only those whose "records place them far outside the mainstream." The site notes further: "There may very well be times when changing the rules is appropriate, but it isn't when the majority doesn't get exactly what it wants."
A time the Democrats thought was "appropriate" was back in 1996 when they sought to abolish filibusters to give Clinton's judicial nominees an up-and-down vote, as David Boaz of the Cato Institute recently noted. And in 1999, Senator Tom Daschle was quoted as saying, "An up-or-down vote, that is all we ask."
Sounds very familiar.
Both Democrats and Republicans have demonstrated that they will support checks and balances and constitutional procedure when they can score quick political points or benefit their respective special interests. But it is also evident both major parties will abandon their principles when they get in the way.
Only the Libertarian Party has remained steadfast as the Party of Principle.
[Matthew Dailey is an employee of the National Libertarian Party in Washington DC. He recently received his Master's degree in public policy from George Washington University, and has been active in the Massachusetts Libertarian Party for several years.]
Posted by at May 10, 2005 02:15 PM
Reader Comments:
Thanks for the story! This ought to make at least ONE reader here happier (wink, wink).
Very well put. Only a party that stands on principle can be trusted to protect the checks and balances of our system even when it isn't politically expedient.
This is a great well rounded post and shows the hypocrisy on both sides. Neither Republicans not Democrats can be trusted to protect our freedom when they are in the majority.
Protections of minority rights are very important in curbing the power of these two pandering parties.
It's easy to remain 'steadfast' when you have no power.
Would there be any problems if I submitted this letter to the editor of the local newspaper as long I I give full credit?
Strangely so, but this is how the government has been no matter who is in charge, and no matter what it is.
Many of you remember when the NRA accused Clinton of allowing a certain amount of gun violence to promote his political agenda? Well, now the Republicans are doing a version of it. They drag out Terry Schiavo to further interventionism into other's personal lives, they drag up a judge who allowed a 13 year old to have an abortion in order to demonize judges further, hell if you want to go extreme, the mounting evidence that Bush did little to nothing to stop 9/11 from happening could be an example of the REPUBLICANS allowing a certain amount of violence to promote a political agenda.
Speaking of the NRA, they were also the ones who said if you allow the government to pass a law limiting a person to only buying one gun a month, who says they can't ram through another lowering to zero? I understand this, but they, and most Republicans, don't seem to care about it when it comes to such things like the Drug War, and even seat belt laws. When most state seat belt laws were passed, they were strictly secondary offenses (meaning you can only get a ticket for it if you get pulled over for something else) and some of these states said that it would NEVER become a primary offense. Well guess what? Now they ARE primary offenses in many states.
Anyways, just remember thes immortal words from Harry Browne; "Republicans only want small government when a Democrat is in office."
Still, as for the judge issue, the fact that 205 of the 215 judges have been allowed to be voted on should be a sign that the Republicans aren't happy without absolute power. Hell, Clinton couldn't get about 60 judges to the floor from what I heard, and I'm not sure just how much power the Dems had between 1993 and 1995, but do you think they would've tried ramming more "liberal" judges through? I think they would've. Correct me if I'm truly wrong, becuase I'm not trying to put forth unfactual stuff.
I think we are leaving out some important points. I think the republicans might have it right, even if it is for the wrong reasons. The fillibuster is a Senate rule which one could make the argument violates the constitution.The costitution says the president only needs a simple majority not a speical majority. To ignore what the constitution says just for the ease we may get from having this extra comfort of another check and balance makes us as bad as the rest. Willing to ignore the constitution as long as we get the result that is diserable to us.
If you watch c-span you would hear the reasons giving to blocking these judges from Democrats are; 1)They want to end afimative action. 2)They want to turn back fdr's and lbj's great society and new deal programs.
So the fillibuster violtes the constitution and the democrates are using it to hold up judges that are pro-gun and want to turn back the unconstitutional new deal programs.Why as libetarians should we be for the fillabuster. But even if you are in favor of the fillabuster only through an amendment should you be able to change rules on voting that are spelled out in the contitution.Not through a simple rules change on the senate floor.
Matt, I agree the democrats think that FDR was the greatest man ever to live and the best President of all time. FDR violated the constitution, he even tried to nominate more supreme court judges so they would agree with him, and pass more unconstitutional laws. I also agree this may take a constitutional amendment to change and not some senate law being passed.
Matt: please clarify. I'm always interested in Constitutional arguments, but I don't see how the Senate's filibuster rule violates it.
I am not for sure if this vioaltes the constitution, but I don't know if the senate passing a filibuster rule is included with the eighteen things congress can do mentioned in Article 1 Section 8, or anywhere else in the constitution. I am not 100% sure so correct me if I am wrong.
Let's hope no one nukes the fillibuster-- as far as I can see it's the only relatively FREE form of government inaction.
Responding to Jd:
From Article I, Section 5:
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings...
I see Senor Dailey is improving his blog writing. Its not bad for a guero.
I might have been a little harsh last time. I was so pissed off when I found out I can't buy Star Trek DVDs with Liberty Dollars at this place in Los Angeles. And the fact I was on a bad acid trip.
Why doesn't the LP write about my great idea about having a giant billboard in outer space telling people to vote Libertarian? Or my other idea in having these crop circles made to say Vote Libertarian?
The house and senate can make thier own rules but this follows things like ethic committies and things of this nature not rule changes on voting that is already stated in the document. If that was the case could you imagine the slippery slope.Filibuster was started in 1806 with no regard to the way it redefined some of the voting requirements laid out in the constittution.
The House and Senate can make their own rules. That is certainly constitutional.
But, the Majority party can't just change the rules when they aren't getting their way. The filibuster is a tool that protects all Americans from the whims of the majority. It forces compromise.
As a libertarian I would rather my government be unable to act than be able to act rashly and without safeguards.
This is my point. We as libertarians are so happy with the extra check and balance that we are willing to except an obvious over interpretation of the rules and procedure. How can we in good conscious argue against new deal(over interpretation of the commerce act) great society(over interpretation of the better good clause) when we want to do the same when it benefits us. The constitution calls for a simple majority you can't make a simple rule change under the rules and procedure clause to change that. The Republicans might be doing this as a power grab but that doesn't change the facts. We as libertarians understand that precedent does not overrule the law of the constitution. If that is the case the precedent set by 1936-1937 supreme court over rules the constitution and precedent set by 1806 senate rule change that violates the voting procedures spelled out in the constitution. If you like the safegaurds that are in the filibuster rule. Pass it legally through an amendment.
Let's not forget that political parties didn't exist when the Constitution was written...
If the founding fathers had envisioned insufficiently large minorities banding together about party banners, to scoff at the constitutionally significant majority, I'm certain they'd have spoken to it in some fashion.
As it is, they haven't, so we must weigh the enumerated power of congress to set its own procedures against the fact of required majorities to pass votes. If any vote is held up by a minority of insufficient size, then the measure should pass as per the constitution. The filibuster is exactly an attempt at this practice, and is thus unconstitutional.
My problem is as stated in the news item: It doesn't really matter, because both the Republocrats and the Demicans don't give a damn about the important things, nor are their intentions ingenuous, ever.
Just look at the 'conservative' and 'liberal' activist judges already on the court. They've interpreted the law in the worst ways possible, including ignoring the second ammendment issue and instead focusing on the 'any court' clause of the law itself ruling in a recent case (name escapes me) regarding a man who was denied his right to keep a pistol and ammunition as per Pennsylvania law because he'd been convicted of a crime in Japan.
Ironically, the crime in Japan was possession of a firearm. As per the case (in the old method of jurisprudence) I'd say the crime wasn't of a sort to merit depriving him his right to keep and bear arms, because he was simply attempting to do what was otherwise legal here in a country where it was illegal; he, a man from a country where the right to keep and bear arms is recognized by a significant portion of the population as a fundamental, inalienable, uninfringeable right.
Jon H, you are correct thank you for pointing that out. I was wrong
I hate New Deal and FDR arguments. Here is why:
American Capitalism was going down. The socialist movements here and in Europe had gained enormously from the depression.
FDR saved capitalism, maybe inadvertently I grant.
But we often forget just how bad the depression really was and just how much of a challenge it proved. Not even the new deal could pull us out of it. All the new deal did was keep the masses from marching on Washington.
FDR new deal pro-longed the depression that lasted for the first nine years of his presidency. Although it's obvious that FDR policys didn't cause the depression that started in 1929 4 years before FDR took office.Many economist including fedreal researve chairman Greenspan puts the year we entered the depression at 1931. But either way it happened before FDR was elected in 1933.WE got there by a load of government regulation including :1887 Interstate commerce act passed, 1890 Sherman act passed ,1906 fda passed,1907 may depression starts,1908 june depression ends,1911 farm loan act,1912 first mininum wage law enacted,1913
feb. 3rd 16th amendment passes ( income tax ) april 8th 17th amendment passes (direct election of senators) dec. 23rd federal reserve act passed,underwood tariff act passed (established a modest income tax). The regulations keep growing and the taxes kept raising and the economy got worse. What FDR could have done was lower taxes+ lower regulation =creating jobs. What he did instead was created more taxes +more regulation=a loss in jobs. The federal reserve never gets the credit it deserves in it's hand in destroying the economy but fdr made things worse. IF the war didn't take place the depression may have lasted the entire fdr presidency.This man did nothing to help capitalism.
Somehow I knew you would say that. Tell me, how long do you think the Republic would stand today if we had a 50% unemployment rate?
What if we had an unemployment rate that high for a decade?
You can say what you want about the New Deal. It kept people from rebelling regardless of how effective it really was. If you can't see that simple truth I think you may want to change your kool-aid.
Matt,
I feel my last post was overly confrontational. I have had this argument with fellow libertarians for years. I think it's healthy and didn't mean to come off like a jerk.
No problem Kenny. I still disagree with you. I think fdr should have went the other direction and dereglated and lowered taxes. I have alot of faith in the freemarkets,so much that I believe that unemployment would have went down fast enough in his first four years that not only would the people not have marched on Washington but also FDR would have been still elected to a second term.
Matt, I have no problem with what you're saying about FDR, etc., but I still don't see how the filibuster violates either the letter or the spirit of the Constitution. Please cite the appropriate Article, Section, and Clause.
It's not about he constitution. It's a Senate rule. The Senate makes their own rules. But, do we like it when people change the rules when they don't get their way. If they had 60 votes this wouldn't be an issue. That's how things have been done.
If I were you, and maybe I am wrong, and I cared about the Republican parties future I would call my Senator and demand they do not go through with this.
There is something fundamentally un-American about changing the rules in the middle of a game. Everyone with sense can see this will not end well for Republicans.
Kenny wrote: "If I were you, and maybe I am wrong, and I cared about the Republican parties future I would call my Senator and demand they do not go through with this."
"There is something fundamentally un-American about changing the rules in the middle of a game. Everyone with sense can see this will not end well for Republicans.
I infer from your comments that if the LP does nothing, the Republican Party will self-destruct. If that's what you're saying, I like the way the story turns out.
Democrats and republicrats accuse each other of being obstructionists and pandering to politics. They accuse each other of running un-fair elections. They accuse each other of cheating,corruption,deceit.They acuse each each other of lying. They acuse each other of rigging elections like the one in washington state between Dina rossi and christine gregoire for governor. Well guess what, THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. THE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICRATS ARE LIARS,CHEATERS,PANDERERS,OBSTRUCTIONISTS.THEY DECEIVE,RIG ELECTIONS AND THEY ARE CORRUPT. Now that we agree with them, why not put some LIBERTARIAN JUDGES ON THE SUPREME COURT SO THAT WE CAN PUT SOME POLITITIANS IN PRISON WHERE THEY BELONG.........Oh yes, And as they are being sentenced for treason, lets have the ENTIRE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS READ TO THESE JERKS.(Just to help them understand why they are going to prison)..........Although george bush may be to stupid to get it.
Carlos sanchez. Doyou suppose that you might still be having a bad acid trip? A billboard in outer space that says VOTE LIBERTARIAN would almost certainly be viewed as a threat against humanity by the democrats and republicrats which would in turn be met by massive star wars spending in order to counter this threat. Bad idea as we are already trillions of dollars in the red, and it may also set off a new arms race.
| 
Thanks for the story! This ought to make at least ONE reader here happier (wink, wink).
Posted by: jnice at May 10, 2005 02:37 PM