bmetzler's Journal: Party of Nine is a Party of No

Did you know that in 1995 the Democrats who had the majority in the US Senate tried to take away the filibuster from the Republicans completely?

Today, the Republicans who are the majority, are not retaliating like they could be, given how they've been treated by the Democrats over the past few decades, but are simply trying to get business down in the Senate, are trying to stop the filibuster from stopping their advise and consent role. Understandably, the Democrats are livid that they aren't in control anymore. But maybe it's time for the Democrats to put partisan politics aside and start participating in governing this country again.

I've excepted a little background on the Republicans filibuster rule changes, because I know that most people still don't understand what the Republicans are doing.

Dem "Party Of Nine" Voted To End All Filibusters In 1995:

In 1995, Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) And Eight Other Democrats Now Serving In The Senate (Bingaman, Boxer, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, And Sarbanes) Supported Ending All Filibusters. In 1995, the only Senators on record supporting the end of the filibuster were all Democrats, nine of whom are still serving in the Senate.

• The Harkin-Lieberman Proposal Would Have Amended The Senate Rules To Allow A Simple Majority To Overcome "Any" Filibuster, Legislative Or Executive.

Read More

Myth-Fact:
Judicial Nominations

Myth #1: Senate Republicans Are Attempting To Abolish All Filibusters.
Fact: Republicans Are Seeking To Reestablish The Senate's Traditional Role In The Judicial Nomination Process, Not Eliminate All Filibusters, An Initiative Some Democrats Have Supported In The Past.

Myth #2: Filibusters Of Judicial Nominations Are Part Of Senate Tradition.
Fact: Having To Overcome A Filibuster (Or Obtaining 60 Votes) On Judicial Nominations Is Unprecedented And Has Never Been The Confirmation Test For A Nominee -- And In The Past, Even Democrats Have Called For Up Or Down Votes.

Myth #3: Democrats Want To Continue Debating These Nominations So They Can Reach A Compromise With The Republican Majority.
Fact: The Democrats Have Threatened To Shut Down The Senate Rather Than Carry Out Their Constitutional Obligation To Provide An Up Or Down Vote On Judicial Nominees.

Myth #4: Democrats Treatment Of Bush's Nominees Is Analogous To Republicans Treatment Of Clinton's Nominees.
Fact: President Clinton's Judicial Nominees Were Not Filibustered And Never Before Has A Judicial Nominee With Clear Majority Support Been Denied An Up-Or-Down Vote On The Senate Floor By A Filibuster.

Myth #5: The Constitutional Option Is Unprecedented.
Fact: Senate Democrats Have Used The Constitutional Option In The Past.

restoring the balance

[Bill Dog]

The bottom line is, filibustering judicial nominees is unprecedented and an usurping of power by the legislative branch from the executive branch. Banning filibustering for just judicial nominess merely restores the checks and balances to their Constitutional level.

An informative (albeit long) article on the Senate's advise and consent role in this regard, written by a professor of constitutional law:
http://www.claremont.org/projects/jurisprudence/02 0602eastman_sandefur.html [claremont.org]