…even though it was once used to delay and defeat civil rights legislation:
“For decades, the NAACP was vehemently against filibusters because they were employed to oppose and counter civil rights legislation. But the NAACP has now switched position,” notes Project 21 member Michael King. “NAACP head Julian Bond has aggressively made verbal attacks on the Bush Administration. Though Bond and the NAACP leadership vociferously deny charges of partisanship, Bond’s actions and the silence of the membership implies that partisanship is the order of the day. By virtue of its actions, the NAACP has forfeited any opportunity to provide a reasonable voice to this discussion.”[...]
Between the 1930s and 1960s, the NAACP was outspoken against filibusters. For example, anti-lynching legislation was never enacted despite three popular bills because of filibusters. The NAACP’s fair employment proposal suffered a similar fate. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unsuccessfully filibustered.
“While the NAACP has filled its coffers and built a reputation fighting the presentation of the Confederate Battle Flag, they are now celebrating a tactic used by former Confederates and segregationists to impede the fight for civil rights,” said Project 21 member Kevin Martin. “The black community should be alarmed that the NAACP now supports the same filibuster that kept lynchings legal.” (Source)
The irony is almost painful. But hey, times change, people change. It would be interesting to know why and at what point the NAACP switched positions on the filibuster.
On a side note, Basic Readings in U.S. Democracy is a good resource.
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 80 comments }
I would venture to say that the day the Democratic Party became the “sugar daddy” of the NAACP was the day that their stance on the filibuster changed (they just did not know it until “daddy” told them
)
Hypocrisy reigns on both sides of the aisle. Thanks for pointing this out re: the NAACP, La Shawn.
Like the dems who tried to kill the filibuster 10 years ago, I am just as against what’s going on today.
Switching sides on an issue to fit your own partisan-political ideologies is loony, and it just proves how loony the NAACP is.
Don’t worry Mike the Republicans dont have the stomach for pushing this through the Senate.
Even though the NAACP should know better, it was the Democrats that filabustered the Civil Rights legislation in the 60s, The NAACP forgets that it was IKE that federalised the Arkansas National Guard and sent them home, After Govenor Faubis called them out to refuse to obey the Supreme Court and sent in the 101 Airborne to enforce Brown v. Board of Education and escort Student to High School.
It was also a Democrat Senate primarily from Southern states, in 1936 that filabustered the ‘Lynching law’, which was pushed NOT by their hero FDR but by Elenor Roosevelt, she did more for civil rights than any Kennedy or Biden ever did.
Finally it was also the democrats who wanted to end the Civil War in 1864 without a complete victory and wanted to sue for peace, thank G-d Lincoln won, one of the last Republicans with any backbone.
Mark,
The major U.S. political parties have changed a lot since the civil war era 140 years ago or even 100 years ago. Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt would barely recognize the Republican party today; it looks so different from the Republican Party that they knew. It’s really not relevant to connect the Democratic Party’s recent approach to civil rights with its approach in 1864. By that logic we should all boycott Republicans because of the Teapot Dome scandal of the Harding administration.
You are correct that some Democrats stonewalled on civil rights in the past 60 years. But it’s preposterous to claim that the slow progress of civil rights in the 20th century is largely attributable to Democrats. The Republicans did at least as much stonewalling as the Democrats. And the civil rights movement was led by (gasp) liberals and opposed by many but not all conservatives.
“The irony is almost painful”
the filibuster is a tactic. neutral. Its what its used for that matters, not that its used.
is there anything you would filibuster?
Come on LB, again, you are better than that.
So what if fillibusters were used to try to kill the Civil Rights Act? Does that mean if there is a simple majority of senators who are willing to provide “marriage benefits” to homosexuals, and the minorty congress-criters fillibustered, you would be mad about the fillibuster?
“Advise and consent”.
Where were all of the people now complaining about “advise and consent” when the Republicans wouldn’t even give Clinton nominees a hearing in committee?
Politics. Both play it. People only whine and complain when your ox is gored.
Kevin Martin assumes Black people are stupid.
Humm…I don’t see the relevence. It is logical for an organization to change over time to meet its current needs.
Anomalocaris:
What kind of a name is that anyway..
Well just of the top of my head J william Fullbright, Albert Gore Sr. refuses to sign the “Southern Manifesto,” which opposed federal
efforts to desegregate schools. Both prominent democrats and the father of who ?
Fulbright who Joe McCarthy called ‘half-bright’ but wasn’t Fulbright Clintons mentor,, hmmmm coincidence I think not.
Right now the NAACP is a wholly controlled subsidiary of the DNC.
LaShawn,
The anti-lynching bill is before my time, but the
label “Liberal or Conservative” in the 1960’s boils down do which people voted for bills and which did not. Ike never said much in public but
sent the 101 Airborne in and they surrounded Faubus’s people before Faubus knew what happened. LBJ got Eve Dirksen R-IL to rally Republican senators to vote for voting rights act. Robert Byrd D-WV voted against bills and Bob Dole R-Kansas voted for bills. The Advise and Consent of the Senate does not have for judges 60 % rule. Now John Lewis speaks for States Rights and that was the issue in the 1960’s. You can vote if registered but they never wrote law that you have to vote! Long after being President, it is revealed that Ike told China (in Beiging) that
he would nuke them until they came to bargaining
table. We are still there over 50 years later.
Yes Albert Gore, Sr. and J. William Fullbright(Sp) voted against such bills. You do not need anti-lynching laws if you can vote for all elected
officials. I know some people who do not register and vote because you can be called for jury duty.
My father said vote for the best guy or least crook but vote!
James M. Barber
The Dem lefties in Congress should be honest here, and work to get an amendment to the Constitution to call for a 3/5ths majority on judicial confirmations. Until then, the Constitution requires no such super-majority vote, and the Dems should be ashamed of themselves for trying to circumvent it.
The 1964 Civil Rights act deserved to be filibustered because it was an enormous violation of the constitution and the principle of free association. Read some of Barry Goldwaters papers on that subject if you are interested.
Mark: Thank God Lincoln did what? Forgo a real peace (the McClellanites) to allow the armies of Sherman and Sheridan to annihilate the South? For Shame. It certainly didn’t take backbone to destroy crops, burn houses, etc.
As for Roosevelt (Teddy) he was a progressive against the real conservative (Taft). Lincoln and Roosevare no heroes, just as an increasing number of modern Republicans are not.
Ah yes, McClellan, Mac the Unready, The Little Corporal of Unsought Fields, the general who wouldn’t fight. Spent his time in command marching his men up and down Virginia, losing opportunity after opportunity.
To his credit, McClellan was a great organizer. If he had been posted to a desk in Washington, he would likely have been the Civil War’s version of George Marshall. But as a field commander, he was largely a failure.
Pope, Burnside and Hooker weren’t any better, and Meade was never destined for greatness. It wasn’t until the rumpled and unimpressive looking U.S. Grant took over that the Union had a commander worthy of opposing the legendary General Lee.
As for peace, that could have been had at any time through the actions of the C.S.A. government, but they chose to fight on after Gettysburg, even knowing then that the cause was lost. The hope was that northern weaklings like McClellan would throw in the towel and seek a peace without victory. Sheridan and Sherman would be unknown today had the Confederacy surrendered in July 1863.
Filibuster is just a tool, but I think if they’re gonna use it, they ought to do it for real as Betsy Newmark of Betsy’s Page says: Get out the cots and camp out on the floor. Debate until the sky falls, but don’t go home until the job is done.
No surprise to me. The Republicans want to act and the liberal Democrats want to talk, talk, talk.
DS just shakes his head.
The U.S. populace is being bamboozled and it appears that people hear don’t know it or don’t care as long as “they” win.
Just remember Anon, Darkstar, Mike M, and Actus,
1) The filibuster is a Senate rule not part of the constitution.
2) Never have judges been filibustered until now by Democrats
3) Republicans never filibustered appointees of Clinton
4) We can all keep pointing out that both sides don’t let judges even get out of committe or whatever but that DIVERSION does not ADDRESS the fact that FILIBUSTER’s haven’t been used on judges until now.
5) These judges that have been nominated have good ratings by the ABA. They are not extremist but are being tarnished by Democrat leadership (the people you follow). This pattern by Democrat leaders to tarnish, name call, tell lies about people, bear false witness about people is wrong and you 4 seem to not care.
“2) Never have judges been filibustered until now by Democrats”
Wasnt abe fortas filibustered?
Nope.
Hey, I researched and I amend my previous answer. I was wrong. For those who care please see.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Filibuster_Derails_Supreme_Court_Appointment.htm
But Actus, Answer this, please. Does this mean that since it happened before by a Republican that this should be the way judges are dealt with today?
AND, do you know how many votes it took in 1968 to end a filibuster (invoke cloture)? It was 67 votes back then. The Senate rules can change and it just isn’t unconstitutional as the Democrat leaders (you follow) claim to end filibustering for appointments.
I amend even further to include this text from a Daly Thoughts blog
A few quick points. First, Fortas was not a Circuit Court nominee. He was not even a Supreme Court nominee. He was already an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court, having been confirmed just three years earlier by a Senate with an only slightly different composition than the one which had issues with him in 1968. President Johnson had nominated him to be the Chief Justice.
As I pointed out yesterday, clearly what the Democrats are doing now with Circuit Court nominees has not been done before. There has never before been a filibuster to keep a nominee off of either a Circuit Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.
“Nope.
Comment by Baklava ”
Thats not what the senate history page thinks. Cliky my name for linky.
” There has never before been a filibuster to keep a nominee off of either a Circuit Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.”
and the left is accused of ‘nuance’.
You didn’t answer my question in the post at 1:39.
“You didn’t answer my question in the post at 1:39.”
I think “republicans did it too” is a poor justification. The avoidance of one party rule by simple majority is enough justification form me. But it is a good retort to the “this is unprecedented” line.
“The avoidance of one party rule by simple majority is enough justification form me.”
Apparently the Founders felt differently, thus the conspicuous absence of super-majority language in the Constitution regarding confirmation of nominees. This was not a careless omission; the Founders did install super-majority clauses for other actions, but apparently felt that the simple majority was the proper means for confirmations.
One party rule?
95%+ of bills are voted on without filibuster. Does that mean that one party rules 95% of the time? No. There are rules that allow for amendments to be voted on and trailers (whatever they are called). Democrats and Republicans are given opportuntity to work together given the rules.
The House is the same way. Sometimes however, the Republicans are in lock step passing a bill and yes, sometimes Democrats are in lock step opposing a bill and in the House these bills would just pass because they have no filibuster opportunity.
But even you Actus, must admit that the reasons Democrats are coming up with that they oppose Judge Brown or Estrada or others have been really character assassination without justification.
What they are now doing against Bolton is outrageous. A woman (a member of MOB- Mothers against Bush) claiming that Bolton made a hostile work environment for her (when Bolton didn’t even work at her company) 10 years ago, when he supposedly commented on her weight?
In the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas fiasco, Anita Hill at least wasn’t viewed as such a partisan because she didn’t belong to a group such as MOB.
Thank you Redbeard,
I keep forgetting that point.
“Apparently the Founders felt differently, thus the conspicuous absence of super-majority language in the Constitution regarding confirmation of nominees.”
They had other mechanisms to keep factionalism out of power. I don’t think they envisioned a two-party system, and I don’t think that what they thought 200 years ago is that relevant to today — really all they left us was advise and consent. In their legacy, judges were impeached for belonging to the wrong political party, so I don’t think you want to point to any of their purity.
I don’t think we’re engaging in legal or constitutional arguments over the nominations process, we’re engaging in a political one. Politically, I think its a good idea to keep away from one party rule of the judiciary. loads of appointments have been approved. more than under clinton. Thats enough for me.
I have not been following the bolton stuff. But have heard that the GOP blinked. nice. That guy sounds like jerk. Isn’t there something with him and the data on Iraqi WMD’s? I don’t know.
) Republicans never filibustered appointees of Clinton
They just never brought up the judges for a hearing and vote IN COMMITTEE.
What was that about judges getting an up or down vote?
So, a committee chairman, not scheduling a hearing for an appointee, does a filibuster of one and gets by?
Hey SS man, Looking partisan (not so truthful either) with your comments there again.
Yeah Actus,
Bolton, along with Bush, Clinton, Kerry, Albright and the French Intelligence, British Intelligence, Russian Intelligenc, U.S. Intelligence and German intelligence were saying the same things about Iraq having WMD’s. You going off the deep end again claiming that there never was any WMD’s when there have been remnants (just not stockpiles found) and Saddam used WMD’s on his own people?
In your world would there have to be a litmus test of being some of the only people out there not believing Saddam had WMD’s before you could be appointed to anything anymore? ANSWER THAT question.
And. if you answer how you should answer to that question then what in the world exactly is your problem with Bolton and the “data” on WMD’s in Iraq?
Looking partisan (not so truthful either) with your comments there again.
OK, tell me exactly what I am not being “truthful” about.
They just never brought up the judges for a hearing and vote IN COMMITTEE.
Circuit Court judges and Supreme Court judges were nominated and then affirmed by the Senate during the Clinton years. By a great percentage also.
Both sides blame the other for making such decisions partisan, and there’s plenty of evidence to support either side. In a Rose Garden speech on Friday, President Bush charged that the judicial confirmation process is “broken,” noting that eight of his first 11 nominees to the Federal Appeals Court waited more than a year for a vote on the Senate floor; three more are now into year three.
Democrats counter that they have, in fact, approved 124 of the president’s nominees, while blocking only two. That’s faster than Republicans moved President Clinton’s nominees when they controlled the Senate. Moreover, some 60 Clinton nominees never had a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee – as effective a block to confirmation as a filibuster, they add.
Is that partisan?
Yes.
Is it true?
From what I remember of the Clinton appointees and the dust up from Democrats towards Republicans when Republians were blocking Clinton’s appointees, yes.
While my last entry is awaiting moderation, there were 60 Clinton appointees who never got a judicial hearing.
Shows 129 in just the 103rd Congress back in 1993-1994. Read and weep.
Sorry. I had to delete the link because it was spilling over. Had to do the same thing to DS. I don’t why this happens with certain links. – Admin
It was on the USDOJ.gov website and it was a letter that said….
———-
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE OPD
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1994 (202) 616-2771
TDD (202) 514-1888
RECORD NUMBER OF FEDERAL JUDGES CONFIRMED
During the 103rd Congress, the Clinton Administration
obtained the confirmation of 129 federal judges, the highest
total ever for a President’s first two years in office.
Fourteeen additional nominations are pending in the Senate.
As the attached statistical fact sheet discloses, the
President reduced the judicial vacancy rate from the 13.5% (113
vacancies) he inherited to 6.3% (53 vacancies). The vacancy rate
would have been 4.7% (39 vacancies) if action had been taken on
the nominees not yet acted upon in the Senate. This is
equivalent to “full employment” in the 837-member federal
judiciary.
In 1994 alone, 101 judges were appointed and confirmed, the
highest one-year number of appointments in the last 15 years.
Sixty-three percent of the Clinton judicial nominees have
received the highest rating of “well qualified” from the American
Bar Association.
The President’s nominees have included 44 women (31% of the
total), 31 African-Americans (22%) and 12 Hispanics (8%). The
President also appointed one Native-American, one Asian-American
and two individuals with disabilities.
###
94-591
If you are going to mention numbers, then why the fuss over 10 blocked, while 124 have been passed?
Like I said, Politics. Both play it.
“Like I said, Politics. Both play it.”
Ok, then it’s way past time for the Republicans to play politics and stop the filibuster.
It’s crucial to confirm judges who will follow the law (the Constitution) instead of making up stuff as they go along.
Baklava: “In your world would there have to be a litmus test of being some of the only people out there not believing Saddam had WMD’s before you could be appointed to anything anymore? ANSWER THAT question.”
from what i’ve heard its not just belief, but manipulation of intelligence. maybe now we’ll get 3 weeks worth of news cycles on it. couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.
Though I can understand how being right might be considered by some a test for competence. How radical and out of touch.
As usual liberal left-wing NAACP wants to fillibuster everything the oppse and put its own interests above what others need.
SS man stated,
If you are going to mention numbers, then why the fuss over 10 blocked, while 124 have been passed?
Like I said, Politics. Both play it.
Funny SS man, you started with the mentioning of the “numbers”. Everyone elses point here including LA Shawn’s is about the filibuster and not the numbers.
Democrats are trying to say filibustering Judges (when scored by the ABA well) should be their option and they are acting as if it’s sacred. Republicans are trying to say LEGITIMATELY that it’s just a matter of changing the rules. And the Republicans are right SS man. It is just a matter of the Senate rules which can be changed.
Do you have anymore argument left?
Actup wrote, from what i’ve heard its not just belief, but manipulation of intelligence.
Nice accusation. So not only did Bolton manipulate intelligence but he said the same thing that Bush, Clinton, Kerry, Albright and the French Intelligence, British Intelligence, Russian Intelligenc, U.S. Intelligence and German intelligence WERE all saying.
He must’ve manipulated intelligence (as libs have charged Bush with doing) BEFORE all those others saw the intelligence and that’s why they were all saying the same thing.
WOW. Keep acting up.
You also wrote, “Though I can understand how being right might be considered by some a test for competence. How radical and out of touch. “
What were you right on Actup? Were you right that there were NO weapons and all others were wrong and so therefore you have to impose a litmus test and Bolton fails because he said the same thing as almost EVERYBODY else?
Please state the obvious instead of mischaracterizing someone. Was there or wasn’t there weapons and were you right and was everyone else who said there was weapons wrong?
SS man wrote, “while blocking only two.”
Wow, what a whopper. Do you have a conscience? I know of more than 2 nominees who have been waiting for more than 4 years for a vote due to the threat of filibuster. Brown, Estrada, Pickering, Owen, Pryor. Wow I’m up to 5 already and that’s just on the top of my head……..
Man. But you’ll still argue I bet….. Just like you did about SS. Can’t name anyone in the last decade who employed SS but you can certainly site an article by TS who mentioned it was Nixon’s Strategy and then you can imply over and over again (against the facts) and without naming names that it was the MO of Republicans much past Nixon…
Estrada answered 178 questions from Senators. The transcript of his testimony before the judiciary committee filled 83 pages.
November 14, 2003: Cloture votes to end the Senate filibusters on the nominations of Priscilla Owen, Carolyn Kuhl, and Janice Rogers Brown fail.
November 12, 2003: U.S. Senate Republican leadership holds “talk-a-thon” for over 30 hours in an effort to pressure Senators to abandon filibusters on the confirmations of Priscilla Owen, Carolyn Kuhl, and Janice Rogers Brown.
October 10, 2003: The first cloture vote to end the Senate filibuster of nominee Charles W. Pickering, Sr. fails 54-43.
July 31, 2003: The first cloture vote to end the Senate filibuster of nominee William Pryor fails 53-44.
July 28, 2003: The Senate filibuster of nominee Priscilla Owen continues as a third cloture vote fails with 53 of the 60 votes needed.
May 6, 2003: The Senate filibuster of nominee Miguel Estrada continues as a fifth cloture vote fails 55-45.
May 1, 2003: The first cloture vote to end the Senate filibuster of nominee Priscilla Owen fails 52-44.
April 2, 2003: The Senate filibuster of nominee Miguel Estrada continues as a fourth cloture vote fails 55-44.
March 13, 2003: The Senate filibuster of nominee Miguel Estrada continues as a second cloture vote fails 55-42.
March 6, 2003: The first cloture vote to end the Senate filibuster of nominee Miguel Estrada fails 55-44.
Baklava, can you consolidate these comments? – Admin
“What were you right on Actup?”
I really didn’t care for the WMD’s. I thought saddam was properly contained and deterred, WMD’s or not. Nobody doubts that he had them in the past, the question was whether he continued to have them. We did find “weapons of mass destruction related program activities” though. that was a good line.
I have no idea why you keep thinking I’m holding Bolton up to the standard of having been correct. Thats an extreme and out of touch test for competence.
Avoid and divert. You really don’t care about the WMD’s but you have a litmus test on Bolton who said the same things as Bush, Clinton, Kerry, Albright and the French Intelligence, British Intelligence, Russian Intelligenc, U.S. Intelligence and German intelligence.
So what is it (you haven’t said still) that Bolton said or did wrong on the WMD’s?
All I can gather is he (and everybody ELSE) said something different than you think.
Sorry La Shawn. It was for emphasis because SS man (Darkstar) claimed only 2 blocked. Or at least he pointed out the Democrats “claim” of only 2 blocked.
Pretty silly and I’ll get back to my day job.
Hope you can post this LINK La Shawn.
http://frist.senate.gov/_files/JudicialNomineesTimelines.pdf
If it fails I’ll just type
frist dot senat dot gov/_files/JudicialNomineesTimelines.pdf
Baklava,
Why must you and DarkStar engage in a pi**ing contest on so many threads? And quit calling people liars. It’s not attractive. Color me ANNOYED.
Q: Why must I and Darkstar engage…
A: It’s a matter of trying to correct the record and clear people’s names that are being smeared by Darkstar. Since you follow, I’m sure you saw him do it to Ward Connerly even. It incenses me that people so casually (without having the facts straight) smear people.
Was that last paragraph calling him a liar? If so, how else do you combat the people who find it so easy to smear others? There may be people reading their text who believe their smears. And that’s not right.
Tiffany wrote on 4/13 when addressing Army NCO,
That dog doesn’t hunt with me. I agree in part with some liberal policies, for example affirmative action (yes, I’m black) and just because you may not agree with said policy (or feel it’s wrong/misguided), doesn’t mean that the individual is stupid.
However, I’ve no wish to engage in a pissing contest. It’s all semantics. I just think it hinders rational, reasonable discussion.
Whatever one believes, is just that: what ONE person believes.
I can see that what I wrote about the author of “Creating Equal” by Ward Connerly, won’t matter to you.
/steppingdown from podium
Baklava,
You missed the point entirely.
This is what you said:
Looking partisan (not so truthful either) with your comments there again.
My POINT was: Debate and dispute all you want which is what you tend do. If you say someone is not truthful then you are calling them a liar.
I’m not really following why you dug up my post from 2 weeks ago and highlighted the part where I mentioned my support for Affirm. Action unless that was a dig at my liberal leanings on that topic.
But as my brother would say: WHATEVER.
I don’t have the patience to go back and forth with you because quite frankly, it’s the Internet, everyone has a opinion that they think is right and it’s not that damn serious.
And while you’re stepping off that podium, and making a poor attempt to be cute, don’t fall off and hit your head.
I don’t get it. The democrats support private armies invading foreign countries?
Baklava,
Looked up the title of the book you referred to. Actually that subject could mean something to me especially if there are points I could agree.
Don’t assume, you don’t know much about me from a comment board.
Last word from me but I’m sure not from you.
Have a great weekend!
“you have a litmus test on Bolton who said the same things as Bush, Clinton, Kerry, Albright and the French Intelligence, British Intelligence, Russian Intelligenc, U.S. Intelligence and German intelligence.”
thats all in your head. What i’ve said about bolton and WMD’s is that i’ve heard he mishandled intelligence.
I’ve told you that i’m not holding him up to the standard that he needs to be right. Can you imagine if we used that as a test for competence? the havoc!
is that i’ve heard he mishandled intelligence.
Again with the smear….
Funny SS man, you started with the mentioning of the “numbersâ€. Everyone elses point here including LA Shawn’s is about the filibuster and not the numbers.
Sigh…
My first comment was #6 in which I wrote:
Where were all of the people now complaining about “advise and consent†when the Republicans wouldn’t even give Clinton nominees a hearing in committee?
In comment #31, I responded to someone who mentioned that Republicans never fillibustered Clinton’s nominees by writing:
They just never brought up the judges for a hearing and vote IN COMMITTEE.
In #32, you said I was untruthful. I then provided support for what I wrote. I then provided the number of Clinton nominees who didn’t get a hearing. I was responding to you.
Do you have anymore argument left?
Yep, again:
For those who say this is a constitutional issue, where are committees and subcommittees spelled out in the Constitution?
For those who say that appointees deserve an up or down vote, what did they say when those 60 Clinton appointees never got a judicial hearing to get voted out of committee?
I know of more than 2 nominees who have been waiting for more than 4 years for a vote due to the threat of filibuster.
This is what I wrote in #47:
If you are going to mention numbers, then why the fuss over 10 blocked, while 124 have been passed?
I think that’s self evident.
Can’t name anyone in the last decade who employed SS
I mentioned Ellen Sauerbry. You are not being truthful.
Sorry, in the above, #47 should be #41.
Sorry La Shawn. It was for emphasis because SS man (Darkstar) claimed only 2 blocked. Or at least he pointed out the Democrats “claim†of only 2 blocked.
In comment #41 I wrote:
If you are going to mention numbers, then why the fuss over 10 blocked, while 124 have been passed?
Baklava,
Dooh. Remind me to refresh the page after a couple of hours.
The NAACP is guitly of nothing in my view. Filibusters can be used for good, sound moral purposes. The opposite is also true. Castigating the NAACP for opposing filibusters to anti-lynching legislation way back when and supporting them now is like excoriating geese for migrating in the winter. Times change. Circumstances change. Tactics need to change with them, sometimes. Remember the tactical role reversal during the Schiavo episode? Republicans that regularly decry activist judges wanted judges to be activist so that they could get what they wanted. Liberals acted like Conservatives and vice versa. Ahh, but that was last month, right?
“Guilty”…sorry for the typo. Ugh.
Found in the Weekly Standard:
Obligatory New York Times Hypocrisy Item
A January 1, 1995, Times editorial on proposals to restrict the use of Senate filibusters:
In the last session of Congress, the Republican minority invoked an endless string of filibusters to frustrate the will of the majority. This relentless abuse of a time-honored Senate tradition so disgusted Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa, that he is now willing to forgo easy retribution and drastically limit the filibuster. Hooray for him. . . . Once a rarely used tactic reserved for issues on which senators held passionate views, the filibuster has become the tool of the sore loser, . . . an archaic rule that frustrates democracy and serves no useful purpose.
A March 6, 2005, Times editorial on the same subject:
The Republicans are claiming that 51 votes should be enough to win confirmation of the White House’s judicial nominees. This flies in the face of Senate history. . . . To block the nominees, the Democrats’ weapon of choice has been the filibuster, a time-honored Senate procedure that prevents a bare majority of senators from running roughshod. . . . The Bush administration likes to call itself “conservative,” but there is nothing conservative about endangering one of the great institutions of American democracy, the United States Senate, for the sake of an ideological crusade.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/347aspyj.asp?pg=2
Redbeard, I’m loving it. Flip-flopping depending on who benefits. ROTFLOL.
Redbeard and Andy, I hope you two never change your mind about anything. Ten years (and probably a different writer) isn’t necessarily flip-flopping. I suppose you would accuse Jesus of flip-flopping because of the different statements He made in Luke 22:36 and John 18:11. Different circumstances require different points of view sometimes. Both of you are too intelligent not to know that or employ it in your own daily lives. To suggest that views can’t or shouldn’t evolve is ludicrous AND disingenuous. Are you two STILL sucking your thumbs? I hope not! Give me a break.
Rafael, you come up with some good points and I am firmly convinced that intelligent people should change their views as they learn and integrate new facts into their worldview.
However, this is not the case. To wit, I’ve substituted Democrat for Republican, Times for Fox News and a couple of other switches to include swapping the paragraphs and look what I came up with below. Just in case anyone misses the impact, I’ve bolded the changed text. This is nothing but a pure political flip-flop.
=======================
A January 1, 1995, Fox News editorial on proposals to restrict the use of Senate filibusters:
The Democrats are claiming that 51 votes should be enough to win confirmation of the White House’s judicial nominees. This flies in the face of Senate history. . . . To block the nominees, the Republicans’ weapon of choice has been the filibuster, a time-honored Senate procedure that prevents a bare majority of senators from running roughshod. . . . The Clinton administration likes to call itself “progressive,” but there is nothing progressive about endangering one of the great institutions of American democracy, the United States Senate, for the sake of an ideological crusade.
A March 6, 2005, Fox News editorial on the same subject:
In the last session of Congress, the Democrat minority invoked an endless string of filibusters to frustrate the will of the majority. This relentless abuse of a time-honored Senate tradition so disgusted Senator Bill Frist, a Republican from Tennesee, that he is now willing to forgo easy retribution and drastically limit the filibuster. Hooray for him. . . . Once a rarely used tactic reserved for issues on which senators held passionate views, the filibuster has become the tool of the sore loser, . . . an archaic rule that frustrates democracy and serves no useful purpose.
Rafael, you know this latest flip-flop by the NAACP and by the New York Times has nothing to do with maturing, or intellectual re-examination, or anything else deliberative. It’s pure political opportunism. Filibuster BAD, except when it benefits the left. Then filibuster GOOD. Let’s at least be honest about what’s going on here, and then we can discuss the relative merits of differing positions.
While NAACP flip-flops on the filabuster. I wonder if they will be flip-flopping on Queazy’s real reason for leaving the NAACP. According to leaks last night/today, it’s over a woman filing sexual harassment a la Jesse Jackson. And will Marylnd voters flip-flop their moral values to go ahead and elect Queazy for political office?
Bob Dole has a good piece in the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/27/opinion/27dole.html?oref=login
Comments on this entry are closed.