Filibuster Precedent? Democrats Point to '68 and Fortas -WP

[Rose Siding]

snip>
Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) told his panel this month that the judicial battles have escalated, "with the filibuster being employed for the first time in the history of the Republic." Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said in a Senate speech last week, "The crisis created by the unprecedented use of filibusters to defeat judicial nominations must be solved."

Such claims, however, are at odds with the record of the successful 1968 GOP-led filibuster against President Lyndon B. Johnson's nomination of Abe Fortas to be chief justice of the United States. "Fortas Debate Opens with a Filibuster," a Page One Washington Post story declared on Sept. 26, 1968. It said, "A full-dress Republican-led filibuster broke out in the Senate yesterday against a motion to call up the nomination of Justice Abe Fortas for Chief Justice."

A New York Times story that day said Fortas's opponents "began a historic filibuster today." As the debate dragged on for four days, news accounts consistently described it as a full-blown filibuster intended to prevent Fortas's confirmation from reaching the floor, where a simple-majority vote would have decided the question. The required number of votes to halt a filibuster then was 67; filibusters can be halted now by 60 of the Senate's 100 members.
...
Some current Republican leaders -- citing comments by former senator Robert P. Griffin (R-Mich.), who led the Fortas opposition -- say the 1968 debate was not a true filibuster. But there is little in the record to support them. The Washington Post reported on Oct. 2, 1968: "In a precedent-shattering rebuff to the Administration, the Senate yesterday refused to cut off the filibuster against consideration of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice." The Congressional Quarterly Almanac reported in 1968: "The effort to block the confirmation by means of a filibuster was without precedent in the history of the Senate." The Senate Web site's account of the episode is headlined "Filibuster Derails Supreme Court Appointment."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45149-2005Mar17.html?nav=rss_politics

What's this? A US paper calling the GOP liars?

[Pirate Smile]

1. The last paragraph

"Frist and others who now threaten to ban filibusters of judicial nominees, Ornstein said, "are trying to provoke a change that isn't defensible through history." '

[sonicx]

2. Strom Thurmond filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1957

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,423312,00.html

Strom Thurmond's last stand against civil rights legislation took the form of a 24-hour long monologue in 1957, which set the record (still standing) for longest individual filibuster. The previous record (22 hours) was held by Wayne Morse, during a 1953 filibuster against Tidelands Oil legislation.

[sonicx]

3. Oh and yes, Republicans used filibusters against Clinton...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200503160004

The Los Angeles Times reported on November 13, 2003: "As recently as March 2000, several Republicans voted to filibuster two Californians whom President Clinton had named to the 9th Circuit appellate court: Richard A. Paez and Marsha L. Berzon. ... Ultimately, the Republican stalling tactics failed, and both jurists now sit on the appellate court." The Washington Post documented a third attempted filibuster of a Clinton judicial nominee on October 5, 1994: The Senate "voted 85 to 12 to cut off a filibuster against confirmation of U.S. District Judge H. Lee Sarokin as a member of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But Republicans continued to talk into the evening against Sarokin, whom they condemned as a 'liberal' and 'judicial activist.' "

[NVMojo]

4. such short memories these rotten brats have ....

[Gman]

7. actually, selective memories

and rely on the public's short term memory debilitation.

[struggle4progress]

16. O, they remember. They just don't have the integrity to tell the truth.

[LynnTheDem]

5. Dear Specter; Are you TRULY that STUPID, or are you just LYING again?

I hope he's just lying; to be that STUPID would be a frightening thing.

Remember President CLINTON, Specter? You surely do whenever you want to blame bush's fuck-ups on Clinton. Yet gee, you don't recall republican filibusters against Clinton. AMAZING!

[markus]

6. You know, I used to have a modicum of respect for Specter

as someone who was his own man, and had never drunk the Kool-Aid.

It just goes to show what careerism in Congress does to a person.

He's lying, and he knows it. So why should the voters of his state ever believe anything he says again?

[Toots]

9. You mean they believed his magic bullet theory?

:shrug:

[ausiedownunderground]

8. Filibuster away Democrats! Where did Democrats suddenly get "Guts".

I don't know what a political Filibuster is in American Politics, but if it is the only method of holding the "Neo-Crazies" at bay with a minority, then "Filibuster" away Democrats. The "Rest of the World" is with you totally!! We weren't allowed to vote! No matter how the Murdoch mainstream media pressures you as "Patriotic" citizens - you must still go with your "gut feelings". If you think things are going wrong in your country then you have a lot of support among the 5.7 billion rest of us. We don't want to take America down. But we need to see some real "Democratic" action from America. Like, could you possibly leave us to our own destiny's! We all have what we have. If our's is better, then lets talk about it. In Oz there are people who would "Kill" an American as easy as American's kill each other.

[DeepModem Mom]

10. kick

[underpants]

11. not a true filibuster

Puhlease!

[cascadiance]

12. I've had to use the Fortas fillibuster example over a dozen times...

... the last year to counter these revisionist history Rethug koolaid drinkers! They keep spouting off the Rush, etc. lies that somehow fillibustering is unique to Democrats.

I wonder how they'll feel in 2006 when they are going to be eating their own words when they'll be forced to using it (or what's left of fillibustering if they trample it down).

Crackheads!

[The White Tree]

13. Dems got the Filibuster idea from 'liberal' Hollywood

From the classic Frank Capra film - Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

Description of film from <www.filmsite.org>

James Stewart established himself as a leading actor with this film, the one he is perhaps most identified with - and it was the fifth film he made in 1939. He was again teamed with his co-star Jean Arthur (in the role of a cynical secretary) from the previous year's Best Picture winner, Capra's You Can't Take It With You (1938). Stewart's character represents the powerful forces of American freedom, democracy and morality over oppression and evil in his emotional portrait of a naive, idealist, patriotic young politician who, after being sent to Washington (a symbol of liberty and democracy) as a junior senator from an un-named state, matures in wisdom, fights political corruption within his state's political machine, and guards American values as a moral hero.

His primary tool is the filibuster. From the plot summary:

When the chamber clears of Senators, Smith (Stewart's character) promises to endlessly speak in a classic filibuster. Prepared, he removes a supply of food and drink from his coat: "And I'll tell you one thing, that wild horses aren't gonna drag me off this floor until those people have heard everything I've got to say, even if it takes all winter."

With hand gestures suggesting what to do, Saunders provides heroic support from the balcony. During the 23-hour filibuster, Smith tries to gain time with a "call to quorum" while the results of his own investigation into corruption can reach him. Diz phones in his own story angle:

With Boss Taylor in control of the media, newspapers, and radio, the truthful distribution of Smith's message is doomed to fail. Taylor confidently tells Senator Paine: "I'll blacken this punk so that he'll...You leave public opinion to me." Taylor is relentless in seeking total victory over Smith, knowing the consequences if they fail: If he even starts to convince those Senators, you might as well blow your brains out, you know that, don't ya? This is the works, Joe! Either we're out of business or we're bigger than we ever were before. We can't miss a trick. We can't stop at anything until we've smashed this yokel and buried him so deep...

I find it amazing how similar the description in this last paragraph is to present days Republican-led Congress and it's conservative allies.

[Mithras61]

15. From the Senate's own website...

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm

Filibuster and Cloture
Using the filibuster to delay debate or block legislation has a long history. In the United States, the term filibuster -- from a Dutch word meaning "pirate" -- became popular in the 1850s when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent action on a bill.

In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could use the filibuster technique. As the House grew in numbers, however, it was necessary to revise House rules to limit debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued since senators believed any member should have the right to speak as long as necessary.

In 1841, when the Democratic minority hoped to block a bank bill promoted by Henry Clay, Clay threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Thomas Hart Benton angrily rebuked his colleague, accusing Clay of trying to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate. Unlimited debate remained in place in the Senate until 1917. At that time, at the suggestion of President Woodrow Wilson, the Senate adopted a rule (Rule 22) that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote -- a tactic known as "cloture."

<snip>

Looks to me like the Dems got the idea from being a minority party in the first place, and from the Senate rules which allowed unlimited debate on anything before the Senate. The so-called nuclear option is simply an attempt to prevent the historically recognized unlimited debate from actually taking place!

[underpants]

14. Kick

Too good to pass up