Friday, May 13, 2005

Bust Judicial Filibusters

by C. Boyden Gray - May 13th, 2005 - Human Events Online
As Republican leaders have moved closer to restoring 214 years of Senate tradition of giving judicial nominees an up-or-down vote, Democrats have launched an aggressive defense of their unprecedented use of the filibuster that is based on mythology, not fact.

Elections must have consequences. This article shows some of the ways in which democrats are twisting logic and history upside down. There is no honest precedent for their refusal to allow an up or down vote on these judicial nominees. Certainly there is no precedent to take an entire group of nominees, including Janice Rogers Brown, and spread the extremist lies about them that democrats are spreading.

Wednesday, May 11, 2005

On Bluffs and Nuclear Options

By Lee Harris - May 11th, 2005 - Tech Central Station
A Two Hundred Year Old Tradition?

Democrats tells us that the filibuster tradition is two hundred years old, making it almost as old as the United States itself. Just Google the phrase "the filibuster tradition" and up will pop a number of sites in which it is confidently stated that the filibuster tradition goes back to the earliest days of the Senate.

However the truth is that the "fillibuster" as we know it was invented by 11 extremist "liberals" who opposed the First World War. As noted in Lee's article, "It is one thing to filibuster against a minor bill affecting people's lives only marginally, and quite another thing to filibuster against a nation's efforts to prepare to fight a war, and it was the willfulness of the willful 11 that drove the Senate to reach for a procedure that would allow a way of terminating filibusters, provided it could be shown that the overwhelming majority of the Senate was desirous of this termination."

If you want to get the true history of this process, this is a great article to understand it. The article addresses both how it came about and why it can be a good thing. The question of whether the good it does is served in its current use by democrats is not so clear.