Skip to main content

View Diary: The Filibuster is Not a Check or Balance (47 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I hadn't thought about that issue (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    J M F, progressivevoice

    In depth at the time, but my general inclination is that all Presidential appointments deserve an up or down vote, and that Senate confirmation should mostly check whether the proposed person is fit for the job.  Republicans shouldn't have blocked nominees in the 90's for being too liberal, and Democrats shouldn't have blocked nominees in the 00's for being too conservative.  If you don't want conservative nominees, make sure there's not a conservative President.  

    Elections have consequences, win or lose.  

    •  By that logic... (0+ / 0-)

      We might have ended up with Robert Bork on the Supreme Court.

      •  Except Bork wasn't filibustered (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        J M F, progressivevoice

        It went to the floor, 42 in favor, 28 against.

        "Societies strain harder and harder to sustain the decadent opulence of the ruling class, even as it destroys the foundations of productivity and wealth." — Chris Hedges

        by Crider on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 08:12:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You mean 58 against. (0+ / 0-)

          You make a decent point, but it only went to a floor vote because Bork refused to withdrawal his name from consideration. The backlash had already happened, even Reagan was slowly backing away from the nomination. There was no real need for a filibuster because democrats controlled the chamber. However, we can avoid Bork like nominations with the threat of a filibuster.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site