Senator Gordon Smith standing with Frist, DeLay

I had hoped Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR) would be reasonable on the filibuster on the 10 judicial re-nominees.  Just got a letter from him and he's spouting the party line...

"Under the Constitution of the United States, the President nominates and appoints Supreme Court justices and judges to the nine federal court systems.  The Senate, however, must confirm the President's nominees by a majority vote.  Recently, critical judicial seats across the country have remained vacant due to the delaying tactics of some senators.

These senators have blocked confirmation votes with a tactic commonly known as a filibuster.  A filibuster prolongs debate on the nominee indefinitely, thereby preventing the Senate from voting on the nominee.  Last Congress, the senate was unable to vote on many judicial nominees, including Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen, due to this filibuster tactic.  Unfortunately, future filibusters on nominees have also been threatened.

The recurrent use of this tactic led Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to propose changing Senate rules for ending debate, known at cloture, on nominations.  Under the rule change proposed last year, the number of votes required to end debate on nominations would have been reduced with each cloture vote taken.  An initial cloture vote on a nomination would have still required 60 votes for passage.  Subsequent votes would have required 57, 54, 51 and finally a simple majority of senators present and voting.

The senate fills a critical role in the confirmation of judicial nominees.  It is my sincere hope that a change of the senate rules will not be necessary to ensure that the senate can fulfill its duty to vote on judicial nominees.  Please rest assured that I will keep your comments in mind should this issue be brought before the senate again during the 109th congress for debate."

----

It's just ironic to me for his letter to mention the Constitution as they attack our system of checks and balances.  Also ironic he brings Frist into this, who participated in far more filibusters than the Bush gang has had against it.

•  I assume your Senator Gordon

  is also Pro-Torture.

  by Chamonix on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 08:11:38 PM PDT

  •  yes : (

    but he did vote to save medicaid and the wildlife refuge.

    * sigh *

    guess i'll hafta call him AGAIN tomorrow.  do these idiots realize that the filibuster has been the senate tradition for all but 60 years of the senate's existence?  i just really do NOT get where all this "restoring tradition" crap comes from.

    by Cedwyn on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 08:23:21 PM PDT

    •  Restoring tradition

      Bringing back the pee-in-a-jar, sleep on your feet while talking, one-man monologue form of filibuster.

      www.wordphiles.info:

      

      filibuster: The use of the term for "a politically delaying tactic such as a long irrelevant speech or several such speeches used by politicians to delay or prevent the passage of some undesired legislation"

      by chimpy on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 08:52:03 PM PDT

  •  He doesnt question the administration

    It takes a major flap for him to make a peep against this administration.  He's very loyal.

    He does like to pretend to be moderate though.  He meekly put forward a "drug reimportation" effort but fell in line nose-to-ass on the administration's awful drug plan.  When it came out that the administration intentionally hid the gigantic real cost he just took it without question.  Now the costs are over double that and he's still a Bush man.  He represents the party well, but not our state.  How does this help people in our state?

    He just got back from a visit to Iraq and Afghanistan, just in time to vote no on Sen Patty Murray's marginal increase to the VA.  An important VA hospital was getting closed last year and I can't find a word he made in support of the veterans.  Thank you Patty Murray and Ron Wyden for standing up and keeping it open.
    

    by mz on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 08:23:46 PM PDT

•  My email to Sen. Smith

  Please be my guest and stand strong with your pals Frist and DeLay. It will make it sooooo much easier to defeat you when your up for reelection. You've seen the polling from the Winston Group, I'm sure, what with all your connections.

  Hey, I'm looking forward to coming north and walking precincts with my progressive brothers and sisters in beautiful Oregon, who deserve a Senator who will protect the Constitution for them.

  One more thing ... your support of DeLay must only mean that you've taken Abramoff money as well. I'll get to work on that paper trail.

  by Joe Bua on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 08:16:18 PM PDT

  •  I sent him this letter...

    *I send caustic letters to those bozos often.  This is one of my nicer letters.  (I will add that I *think Smith voted against the bankruptcy bill; so I wrote and thanked him.  He sent me a form response lauding the bankruptcy bill. Essentially, he knew the repubs had the votes, and their party allows them to vote NO on bills that would hurt their election chances.  So, votes no on bankruptcy, even though he is ALL FOR IT.  They are all disingenuous bastards).

    Anyway, here is my letter to him:

    Dear Sen. Smith:

    Please vote against any option that would nullify the filibuster in the senate.

    It is truly the only guard against one-party rule in this country.  American Revolutionaries were most afraid of one-party rule, and I believe that they were correct to worry about it, given what your party has gotten away with the past five years.

    But, someday, you will be the minority party... and I think you might want to have the filibuster.  Indeed I do.  The republican party made good use of the filibuster over the years.  

    Changing rules, precedence, and historical procedures for ONE ISSUE (to get fundie judges on the bench) is appalling.  Simply appalling.  80% of Americans were against congressional and judicial intervention in the Schiavo case.  

    Imagine if Delay and Frist had had their preferred judge sitting in Fla, and had reinserted the tube?  To my happiness, it would have resulted in a huge backlash against the interventionist republicans.  But I am happy that reason, wisdom, virture and the rule of law set into the mix AFTER the atrocious overreaching of the Congress.  

    The filibuster will help to maintain as much of a reasonable judiciary as can be, given the polarity in issues.  

    Thank you.
    

    by letsfight on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 01:18:50 AM PDT

•  I know it is early

  but who do we get to run against this guy in 08??

  by jj32 on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 08:29:52 PM PDT

  •  I wish we could get Kitzhaber

    But people tell me it's not going to happen.

    by realitybased on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 08:34:54 PM PDT

    •  yeah

      apparently he dislikes DC. Saw a GOP poll that showed the current governor Kulongoski with good approvals, so maybe him if he wins re-election. And all but one rep I believe is a Democrat. Pete Defazio's record doesnt look bad, but I dont know how he is viewed, etc, since I dont live in OR.

      by jj32 on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 09:05:26 PM PDT

•  Another snapshot for the album

  These are the valuable weeks. Loyalty is falling apart in ones and twos.

  First to split: they lose points with the Norquist machine.

  Ones who stay too long: they'll have to bathe in tomato juice from now til election time to get DeLay's stink off of them.

  Save pictures and stories for next campaign. Newspaper websites will have deleted this story by then, so keep your own copy. Clip & scan photo from local paper if you have to.

  I'm not saying (out loud, anyway) that the official online version of history will be scrubbed clean for the next election. News sites just don't keep stories around forever.

  by chimpy on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 08:44:19 PM PDT

•  Interesting that he's talking about

  the step-down-the-number-of-votes proposal to shut off debate, an idea that Frist and Hatch were floating a year ago.

  I wonder if the majority is trying to strategize now and figure out if that approach would seem more palatable, less alarming to the public.

  It's still a bad idea.

  The rule for   - controversial legislation, - controversial executive appointments and  - controversial judicial appointments is 60.

  by joan reports on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 09:04:11 PM PDT