Feingold Loses His Convictions

Times change.

Like his fellow Democrats, Sen. Russ Feingold defends the right to filibuster judicial nominees, saying it’s the only way for his party to provide a check against a GOP majority “intoxicated with power.”

But 10 years ago, Feingold voted to essentially end the filibuster, a longstanding Senate practice that raises the bar for approving controversial bills or nominees from a 51-vote majority to 60 votes.

“My view has changed,” said Feingold in an interview last week, saying he has come to value the filibuster “because of the abuse of power by those running the Senate.”

I wish that the media would stop labeling Feingold a “maverick.”  All he is is another mindless party hack. 

1. The media now has to fess up and say that they admire him because he has always been a tireless, empty-headed liberal. Even when it made sense to hang on to common sense or engage the passenger restraint - Russ has always seen fit to walk about the cabin.  This time - he has hit his head and knocked himself silly.

   I wish it would happen more often.

   Thanks for playing Russ.  Hillary is smarter than you are.

   The Sapien

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 24, 2005 at 2203 hrs




2. Question:  How do you feel about Bill Frist, who voted to filibuster Clinton judicial nominee Paez in 1996?

   Posted by folkbum on April 24, 2005 at 2226 hrs




3. I can not remember who said it but it rings very true. It was essentially all concern about procedure is bogus.

   Each side is going to be in love with the procedure it uses to its own advantage and condemn those that are used to its disadvantage.

   There is no doubt the filibuster of the nominees is an escalation of things.

   Posted by Marcus Aurelius on April 24, 2005 at 2259 hrs




4. RE: Frist filibuster

   Question: Do you feel a filibuster was wrong then? Do you feel a filibuster is wrong now?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 24, 2005 at 2316 hrs




5. Fred, was that for me?

   I think the filibuster in general is good.  Remember, Democrats in the Senate got more votes than Republicans did, and represent more people than Republicans do.  I know, the Senate was designed so that low-population states can’t be overruled by high-population ones, but it was also designed (in 200 years of rule-making) to protect the minority party, too.

   For the courts, though, I actually think that the “red card” and other systems that existed prior to the Republicans’ Senate takeover, mid-90s, worked well.  That’s why none of Clinton’s nominees ended up filibustered—though the Republican Senate confirmed a much smaller percentage than the current Senate has from Bush.  The dismantling of those long-standing rules has led to this last-ditch threat to filibuster.  But soon the Republicans will kill that rule, too, in their unyielding quest for a one-party state.

   Posted by folkbum on April 24, 2005 at 2341 hrs




6. “Remember, Democrats in the Senate got more votes than Republicans did, and represent more people than Republicans do.”

   I thought that once the election was over the Senator represented all the people in his district, not just the ones who voted for him. Is this not so? This is important to me because like most people - a true majority - I am neither Republican nor Democrat.

   “their unyielding quest for a one-party state” with a link to Kos yet. Kind of wild eyed stuff there.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 25, 2005 at 0101 hrs




7. Well, interesting as this is, it is keeping me up way past my bedtime. The link is to professor Stephen Bainbridge who teaches corporate law at UCLA. He has a chart from The Economist showing judical appointments for modern presidents.

   In case the Java link thingy doesn’t work:
   http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2005/04/obstructioni sm.html 

   Professor Stephen Bainbridge

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 25, 2005 at 0148 hrs




8. Fred, your two points, in reverse:  If you want to narrow the scope of the discussion to circuit-court only, sure.  However, please note that between 1996 and 2001, the number of appeals court vacancies more than doubled as Senate Republicans blocked Clinton’s nominees.  Today, we’re down to a mere 26 vacancies; only 10 nominees (at all levels) have been blocked by Democrats.  If you consider Bush’s overall confirmation rate, his 95% beats Clinton’s 81% (the chart is out of date on Bush, but the Clinton numbers haven’t changed).  Clinton, in all, had 60 of his judges blocked.

   As to the representation thing, Fred, if you add up population totals in the states represented by Dems, the Senate Dems—despite having a ten-seat minority—represent more than Senate Rpublicans do.  Of course Dem Senators don’t just represent the people who vote for them; the point I was trying to make is that while the Dems may be in the minority in the Senate, they and the residents of their states have as much right to be heard as the majority party, at least in part because of how overall votes and representation breaks down.

   Finally, did you read my the Kos link?  Bush is replacing delegates to a firggin’ communication standards conference—about as apolitical as you can get—because of their political donation history!  Remember the stink when Clinton cleaned house in the travel office?  Where’s that kind of outrage over this?

   Posted by folkbum on April 25, 2005 at 0550 hrs




9. Feingold and convictions should never be used in the same sentence (at least unless a prosecutor can get one on him )

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 25, 2005 at 0613 hrs




10. I always thought the Senate was meant to represent the States that this clowns are from.

    Its initial purpose was to be the chamber for the states. Now they serve each party’s interest.

    Thank you “progressives” for this log jam.

    Posted by Kevin Binversie on April 25, 2005 at 0813 hrs




11. There shouldn’t be a filibuster for the Senate’s Advise and Consent role. It doesn’t matter which party is in power. Furthermore - Senators should refrain from viewing their role as a veto on mainstream ideology.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 25, 2005 at 0846 hrs




12. If “mainstream ideology” means where most people are, then I think the Republicans are missing it.  At least, when it comes to abortion and Roe, which, as we all know is what these fights are about.

    Check out what the mainstream believes.

    Posted by folkbum on April 25, 2005 at 0912 hrs




13. I wondered how long it would take for someone to remind conservatives that Republicans blocked more of Clinton’s judges than Democrats have Bush’s.

    And regarding what many Republicans really want to happen with ultra-conservative judges…NOTHING!  They wish they’d go away.  There are an awful lot of middle-of-the-road Republican members of the public and senators (call them RINOs if you will, the fact is they’re often the only kind of Republicans who could get elected in their states) who are terrified of what’s going to happen to the blue state/red state map when the increasing number of conservative federal appelate and Supreme Court justices begin to unravel Roe v. Wade.  For many pro-choice swing voters (and there are a LOT of these), they will wake up one day and find out that something they never imagined possible is coming true…the abolotion of abortion rights.  Start painting the map blue when it happens, because you’re not going to find many women voting red except those who attend a conservative church service every Sunday.

    If and when abortion is the number one or two voting issue in this country, Republicans get creamed at the polls.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 25, 2005 at 1631 hrs




14. Patrick, I’d be interested in which Clinton nominees you’re talking about. 

    IIRC, the Clinton nominees that were blocked were blocked by Republicans who were in the majority at the time, as opposed to the Dems currently blocking when they are the minority party, and there are sufficient votes on the floor to approve the nominations.

    AFAIK, there has NEVER been a filibuster of a nominee where there were sufficient votes on the floor to approve the nomination.

    Posted by Jed on April 25, 2005 at 1706 hrs




15. Wow, Jed, how finely do you want to split hairs?

    Fact:  Ten—one-oh—of Bush’s nominees have not hit the floor for confirmation, a total of 5%.
    Fact:  Sixty—six times as many—of Clinton’s nominees did not hit the floor for confirmation, a total of 19%.

    If you believe that the Senate must take an up-or-down vote on a president’s nominees, then the Republican majority screwed the pooch 6 times worse than the Democratic minority is now.

    Full stop.

    Posted by folkbum on April 25, 2005 at 1721 hrs




16. There’s a HUGE difference. 

    The party in the majority represents the will of the electorate, and their decision to kill a nomination can be fairly said to represent the will of the people (especially when they know they have the votes to kill the nomination in a full vote).

    The minority party attempting to do the same thing (especially in a situation where the votes to confirm are there) is just being obstructionist.

    I do believe that there should be an up-or-down vote on all nominees.  As far as pooch screwing goes, however, I don’t characterize the pooch screwing as the same when it’s done knowing you have the votes to win on the floor vice knowing you don’t.

    Posted by Jed on April 25, 2005 at 1731 hrs




17. If they had the votes, Jed, why didn’t they let Clinton’s judges go to the floor?  They’re squeezing the joy buzzer of power wherever they can find it and it’s reprehensible.

    And as for the “will of the electorate,” see my links above:  Dem Senators represent more people in terms of states’ population and they accumulated more votes to get elected.

    Posted by folkbum on April 25, 2005 at 1800 hrs




18. They didn’t let them go to the floor because they didn’t have to.  They knew they had the votes to defeat the nomination.  I’m not saying I agree with it, but the logic is sound.  A lot more sound than holding up a vote because you know you can’t win.

    Dem Senators represent more people in terms of states’ population and they accumulated more votes to get elected

    But that’s not the way the system works, now is it?

    Posted by Jed on April 25, 2005 at 1832 hrs




19. Sigh.  Forget it.

    You can have your one-party state.

    I’ll be in New Zealand if you need me.

    Posted by folkbum on April 25, 2005 at 1842 hrs




20. WOOHOO!!!  Folkbum’s moving to New Zealand

    Posted by Owen on April 25, 2005 at 1848 hrs




21. Nah, he couldn’t get a benefits package as good as he has now if he lived somewhere else. 

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 25, 2005 at 1856 hrs




22. Are you kidding?  I don’t need benefits.  I’ll live off the largesse of their pinko-commie system.

    Posted by folkbum on April 25, 2005 at 1902 hrs




23. Oh, and more will of the people, from a Washington Post poll:

    Would you support or oppose changing the Senate rules to make it easier for the Republicans to confirm Bush’s judicial nominees?

    Support - 26%
    Oppose - 66%

    Posted by folkbum on April 25, 2005 at 1907 hrs




24. I’d be willing to put money on how many of those polled actually know the history of the filibuster.

    I’d also like to see the responses if the question was phrased as “Would you support or oppose changing the Senate rules to make it more difficult for a minority of Senators to bring the Senate’s business to a halt for an unlimited period of time?”

    Posted by Jed on April 25, 2005 at 1950 hrs




25. I don’t know, Jed; the language of that question is clear and simple.  You’ve been trying to nuance this one all night, and it’s only because you have to massage things to get them to conform to your own worldview.

    The Post asked a simple question, and by a 2-1 margin the people answered on my side, not yours.  You can contort all you want, but you just can’t claim to be on the side of the will of the people any more.

    Posted by folkbum on April 25, 2005 at 2016 hrs




26. The language may be clear, but the question is still horribly slanted to suggest a negative answer.

    And there’s no massaging on my part—you’re the one trying to equate two completely different situations to fit your worldview!

    Posted by Jed on April 25, 2005 at 2046 hrs




27. Again, Jed, pardon me if I’m a little perplexed:  Do you mean to say that “to make it easier for the Republicans to confirm Bush’s judicial nominees” is slanted so as to elicit a negative reaction?  Because even 50% of Republicans said they didn’t support this.

    Or do you mean the part about “changing the rules”?  Because I’d like to hear how this is not, you know, changing the rules.

    And besides, this WaPo poll corresponds with (one would think) unbiased internal Republican polls that showed, we presume based on Republicans’ reactions, the same public opinion.

    And as for the massaging (doesn’t that sound good right now?), let’s review a history of this thread:
    -Owen posted a story in which Russ Feingold admits to changing his mind after ten years, omiting the part of the story which says that Feingold’s vote against the filibuster had nothing to do with judicial nominees
    -I asked Owen a question that has remained unanswered:  Bill Frist voted to filibuster a Clinton nominee, and now decries the filibuster against judges as unconstitutional—when will you on the right call him on his hypocrisy?
    -Fred linked to an Economist article that made it look like Bush’s nominees were not being confirmed at the rate Clinton’s were, but that article used incomplete, cherry-picked data
    -Milwaukee Sapien linked the filibuster over the judiciary to a “veto of mainstream ideology,” though polling data clearly and consistently show Bush’s anti-<u>Roe</u> judges to be the ones outside the mainstream
    -Jed says it doesn’t mattter that Republicans used Senate rules to block Clinton judges, since they would have been shot down on the floor anyway; this somehow excuses the behavior the Republicans used to engage in, now that they decry it in their Democratic colleagues
    -Jed claims the Senate majority “represents the will of the electorate,” though the majority party, data show, represents and was elected by, a minority of voters
    -Jed claims the Senate majority “represents the will of the electorate,” though poll data show 2-1 the electorate disapproves of the majority party’s plans

    A pattern of distortion, distraction, or outright dismissal of facts.

    I, on the other hand, have maintained a single straightforward stance throughout, without cherry-picking data, selectively quoting newspaper articles, or dismissing polls I disagree with because they don’t fit my paradigm.  (Seriously—point out to me where I misrepresented anything and I will take it all back.)  Face it, fellas, you’ve lost this one.

    Posted by folkbum on April 25, 2005 at 2123 hrs




28. Folkbum,

    Please provide proof.  I am unaware of Frist’s vote to filibuster a Clinton nominee.

    Posted by Owen on April 25, 2005 at 2137 hrs




29. Owen, he voted nay on this cloture motion—in other words, he didn’t want to stop debate; he wanted the filibuster.  Here (.pdf) is a press release from Bob Smith (R-NH) showing that his intent was “to block the nominations of two activist Clinton judicial nominees.”  Frist voted with him—nay on cloture—to filibuster.

    Posted by folkbum on April 25, 2005 at 2147 hrs




30. Good golly, folkbum, are you working on your own filibuster here?  Jeesh.  Shouldn’t you be packing for your move to New Zealand?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 25, 2005 at 2157 hrs




31. Folkbum,

    I can’t help but notice that in this vote, there were 55 Republicans.  Again to Jed’s point, there’s a difference between a majority exercising its will and a minority being obstructionist. 

    In the vote you cited, the nomination made it to the floor.  The Dems are not even allowing a vote on the Bush’s nominations.

    Posted by Owen on April 25, 2005 at 2219 hrs




32. Good work Folkbum.  I want the minority party (D or R) to be able to check the other because I don’t completely trust either party.  I think the Republicans have gotten a step ahead of themselves and I hope they pay for it.  Perhaps this move from Frist and company will come back to bite them very hard sometime in the next 2 to 10 years. 

    Owen, good work here, even though I disagree wholeheartedly with you.  How about an opinion on Mr. Moral Majority Leader Tom DeLay?  You all at B & S love to light up the Dems on ethical lapses and excess, so why don’t don’t we turn the guns on Mr. DeLay?  I’m looking forward to it

    Folkbum, I heard there is great hiking in New Zealand and I hope to go there myself someday.  Just make sure you get back in time for the 2006 election cycle

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 25, 2005 at 2229 hrs




33. Must . . . stay . . . awake . . . to . . . fight . . .

    So, Owen, you’re with Jed that it’s okay to filibuster when it doesn’t count, but if there’s a chance the filibuster might work, then it’s a bad thing?

    And as to “Dems are not even allowing a vote on the Bush’s nominations,” remember that for sixty Clinton nominees, Republicans did not allow a vote—six times the number as for Bush.  That was my point with Jed; if you guys are all about “allowing a vote,” then you must acknowledge that Republicans’ “blue slips” or other tricks (rules since abandoned now that there’s a Republican president, I might add) during the Clinton years were also unacceptable.

    Posted by folkbum on April 25, 2005 at 2244 hrs




34. Nah - you can go to sleep.  Your comment wasn’t worth the effort of staying awake

    Posted by Owen on April 25, 2005 at 2251 hrs




35. One more data point to consider as you refuse to address the hypocrisy that pervades this issue.  From the same ABC/Washington Post poll:

    The Senate has confirmed 35 federal appeals court judges nominated by Bush, while Senate Democrats have blocked 10 others. Do you think the Senate Democrats are right or wrong to block these nominations?

    Right 48
    Wrong 36

    I do hope that the language to that question is acceptable, Jed.

    Posted by folkbum on April 26, 2005 at 0535 hrs




36. Once again, conservatives refuse to believe that the majority of Americans don’t agree with them and claim that any poll showing otherwise is horribly slanted.  And this notion of there being a difference in moral or procedural appropriateness of a minority vs. majority congressional party filibustering is the very height of anti-democratic arrogance.

    Does anyone really believe that if we had a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic majority in Congress that Republicans wouldn’t filibuster?  Get real.

    Republicans ran excellent, strategic campaigns this year for president and for key congressional seats.  Somehow, they’ve convinced themselves that their electoral success translates to a mandate on every single conservative Republican issue.  If polls show otherwise, they tell themselves, then the polls are biased.  That’s laughable. 

    Republicans won big because 1) they knew how to get people to the polls in big numbers; 2) the public still thinks they know what to do about terrorism better than Democrats; and 3) they like to cut taxes.  A majority of the public DOES NOT like Republican grandstanding on the Schiavo case, does not agree with Republican nominations of pro-life judges, does not think the President knows what to do about Social Security, and does not think the economy is strong.

    This notion of the majority party in congress fulfilling the will of the people regarding nomination of conservative judges is just plain ignorant, delusional spin at its very worst.  If American citizens had been allowed to cast their vote for president last November on one issue and one issue only—a president’s power to appoint judges—then Bush would have lost.  He won in spite of his judicial appointments, not because of them.  His own people know this—they avoided all but a token stab at the judicial question during the campaign.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 26, 2005 at 0944 hrs




37. folkbum-

    If you’re so confident that the majority supports your unborn baby killing agenda, why are you so scared of Roe being overturned?  After all, the Supreme Court cannot hold that unborn baby killing is illegal; they can only hold that state laws protecting unborn babies do not violate the Constitution.  If your liberal media public opinion poll is to be believed, then unborn baby killers have nothing to fear because no state would pass a law protecting unborn babies.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 26, 2005 at 0947 hrs




38. There’s something I don’t believe that has been discussed here. Why are the Republicans considering the nuclear option without actually pressing the filibuster? After all, if the Democrats filibuster, they would actually be halting Senate business even more than if they have threatened to in response to a Republican alteration of the rules of the Senate. And the physical length of a filibuster is limited by the stamina of the Senator who holds it, which really couldn’t last more than a day.

    My guess is that the Republicans really don’t want the spotlight shined on these specific judges, and would instead rather talk about process. I would be interested to hear your guesses.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 26, 2005 at 0952 hrs




39. If the filibuster begins, the news reports will follow two directions 1) the historical significance and precedence of the filibuster as a legislative tool and whether it still has a proper place in politics; and 2) bios of the judges whose nomination led Democrats to filibuster.

    Right now, you’d be lucky to find a handful of people who could name the nominated judges and tell you something about their judicial records and perceived stances on political issues.  If the filibuster begins, that all changes.  Republicans don’t want that.  They have enough smart people locked away looking at poll results to know that not all of the “public” polls about abortion, judicial nominees, right to die, etc. are biased.  Republicans like it when judicial nominees are at the bottom of the news and not at the top of the news. For that matter, when they’re in power, so do Democrats.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 26, 2005 at 1006 hrs




40. Strike, nonresponsive! Again Patrick, if you think that the public supports your views on abortion, why are you so scared of Roe being overturned?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 26, 2005 at 1013 hrs




41. I believe Patrick was answering Steve-O’s question, Survivor.

    As for your question:  I brought in public opinion polls not to show my complacency over the abortion issue, but rather to disprove statements made by several conservatives here that Bush’s extremist judges represented the “will of the electorate” or the “will of the people.”  Asking the people actually shows that, no, they don’t.

    I don’t have fears about Roe‘s being overturned, in part because it seems unlikely (whatever Specter is saying at the moment), and in part because, as Patrick noted way, way, way upthread, re-igniting a such a massive abortion fight will be bad for Republicans who hold onto the “never under any circumstances” position, and good for Democrats who hold the “safe, legal, and RARE” position.

    But moreso, I do worry about the focus on Roe generally because I think it distracts from the primary issue.  Too many people want to focus on a fifteen-minute medical procedure that they forget how important the months and years leading to that moment are.  I would like nothing better than to see abortions drop to zero, but I want to see that result come about because
    • no women are ever raped or molested again
    • all girls and women have access to health care, including reproductive care that prevents unwanted pregnancies
    • all children—girls and boys—receive comprehensive health, relationship, and sexuality edcation, either at school or at home, so that unmarried teen pregnancy rates fall to zero
    • all women feel financially capable of healthily carrying a baby to term
    • all women feel financially capable of supporting a child at home, including having access to quality child care while she works to support her family at a job that provides a living wage

    Now, I know much of that is pie-in-the-sky (try getting a living-wage bill through a Republican legslature!), but America’s intense focus on a medical procedure means public-policy intiatives that could encourage these things get neglected.

    I hope that answers your question.  Now, can we get back to talking about Republican hypocrisy?

    Posted by folkbum on April 26, 2005 at 1037 hrs




42. First, Survivor, you addressed folkblum specifically with your remarks.  I didn’t know that I was obligated to refer to your remarks when they were not addressed to me.

    Second, my observations about political power, polls, elections, legislative strategy and judicial nominees does not derive from any personal opinion I have about what makes for good reproductive rights/baby killing (choose your own euphamism) law.  In other words, I don’t fear any judicial ruling regarding abortion…I merely observe what I believe to be obvious regarding the roles abortion and judicial nominations will play in politics.  The plain truth is, if the public perceives that newly appointed judges are anti-abortion and pose a threat to abortion rights, then they will begin voting with a candidate’s views on abortion being considered first, and not fifth or sixth, as voters determine who gets their support.

    Personally, regardless of what anyone’s moral opinions about abortion may be, I find Roe v. Wade to be questionalbe at best in the manner in which legal theory is applied.  The real legal question should be one of “when” constitutional rights begin to apply to a fetus.  Roe v. Wade wiggles away from this by taking the convenient “privacy” route.  Privacy can only come into play once the questions are answered regarding what constitutional rights apply to a fetus, and when.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 26, 2005 at 1041 hrs