Skip to main content

View Diary: In Defense of the Judicial Filibuster (27 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  A respectful opposing viewpoint... (4+ / 0-)

    As you point out, the Justices on the Court make little effort to hide their Partisan affiliations. Since the sober, respectful, deliberative, 60 votes required process hasn't eliminated partisanship from the bench, wouldn't it make more sense to eliminate the filibuster entirely and at least eliminate the wasted time for both sides?

    •  I think that... (6+ / 0-)

      ...the Diarist is saying that the minority party should filibuster more often.

      If the minority party filibustered more nominees -- even competent ones -- based on ideology, then the President would be forced to quit nominating ideologues.

      •  Yes, precisely. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        phonegery, MichaelNY

        Democrat, OR-01 native, Swingnut for life, and keeper of the DKE glossary.

        by SaoMagnifico on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 06:45:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sao - two highly partisan Justices (4+ / 0-)

          received very high votes when the Senate was more collegial. Scalia was confirmed by unanimous consent and Ginsberg, a former general counsel of the ACLU, won 96 votes. I doubt either could be confirmed today.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 07:25:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What we're working with now, though... (0+ / 0-)

            Is a Senate that is much more divided. And we're likely to be working with that sort of political climate for a while yet.

            We might as well take advantage of the perks. Especially when lifetime appointments are at issue.

            Democrat, OR-01 native, Swingnut for life, and keeper of the DKE glossary.

            by SaoMagnifico on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 07:49:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sao - so you would think it was appropriate (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Jerry J

              if the GOP blocked any liberal Obama would nominate to replace Ginsberg when she retires?

              "let's talk about that"

              by VClib on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 08:27:31 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't like the idea... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                VClib, Australian2

                Of "liberals" and "conservatives" on the court. I do believe in the progressive drift of this country; I believe we have moved socially leftward since our founding and that we will continue to do so. And I favor jurists who recognize that expanding liberties for Americans is a fundamental value of our country. I don't want to see decisions like Roe v. Wade overturned, because I believe in more freedom, not less.

                But I don't like the idea that a liberal's seat becomes vacant, therefore a liberal must be appointed. I believe an open-minded, fair, thoughtful, and intellectually independent jurist should be named to the court whenever a vacancy arises. Staunch partisanship should be an automatic disqualifier. If a Justice Alito wants to shape laws to the liking of the Republican Party, he should run for office as a Republican. If a Justice Ginsburg wants to do the same in favor of the Democratic Party, she should run for office as a Democrat.

                Then again, if you're Justice Thomas, you can be a Republican political activist and a Supreme Court justice, and no one can or will do anything about it. So, there's that, I suppose, if you're morally and ethically bankrupt.

                Democrat, OR-01 native, Swingnut for life, and keeper of the DKE glossary.

                by SaoMagnifico on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 08:42:01 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site