Filibuster Myth Busting

Who ya gonna call? (Now I've got that stupid Ghostbusters theme in my head...and hopefully so do you!) Here's a rule of thumb when you navigate the political waters: When the Republicans all start saying the same thing repeatedly, it's time to investigate exactly what they are saying as they are likely parsing their words for a very important reason- that reason is they are probably lying. Much has been written about the filibuster and the changes the Senate Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist is proposing. Myth #1- The 'Nuclear' Option Of late the GOP has tried to insinuate into the argument that the phrase 'nuclear option' is a Democratic spin tactic used to scare the electorate into thinking the GOP is doing something drastic. Fact #1- The phrase 'nuclear option' actually comes from the mouth of former Senate Majority leader (and REPUBLICAN) Trent Lott who referred to rule changes as a nuclear option during the filibuster of Miguel Estrada in 2002. Mythbusting #1- The Republicans were trapped by their own demagoguery and realizing the phrase 'nuclear option' made voters believe they were radically changing Senate rules decided to slander the Democrats This lie falls under the rubric "Bold Face Lie". The sort of lie that rests on the lack of confidence in the listener to search the historical record. Myth #2- Judicial Filibustering has never occurred before. Frist put it this way: "In February 2003 the minority radically broke with tradition and precedent and launched the first-ever filibuster of a judicial nominee who had majority support." Fact #2- Lyndon Johnson appointed Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the late 60s. The nomination was filibustered. More recently, the GOP filibustered Clinton nominee Richard Paez. One of the Republicans involved in the filibuster?? On March 9, 2000, Frist participated in a filibuster of Richard Paez, President Clinton's nominee to the Ninth Circuit. Mythbusting #2- What??? Yes see this falls under the parsing words section. Frist and the GOP say that Clinton's nominees weren't blocked, as 10 of Bush's nominees have been and that all of Clinton's nominees received an up or down vote. Technically this IS true. Why?? Because those GOP Senators who wanted to block Clinton nominees, and filibustered their votes, were unable to stop 60 other Senators from voting for cloture (the process that ends debate and sets up the up or down votes). So actually what bothers Frist and the GOP rule changing crowd is that they can't muster 60 votes to bring about cloture NOT that judicial nominees are filibustered. Hence the rule change that would reduce the number of cloture votes necessary to end judicial filibusters. Myth #3- Democrats are blocking Bush judges out of partisanship Fact #3- Democrats have actually allowed votes on over 219 of Bush's nominees to the courts, only 10 have been effectively filibustered and of those ten 3 have been removed from the process (so only 7 of Bush's nominees are currently being blocked). Mythbusting #3- 219-7 wow THAT'S some nasty partisanship. In reality, the minority party is using Senates rules which have been used before, to not allow the most right-wing judicial activists from being put on permanent positions on the bench. This is one of those hypocritical lies where you accuse someone of doing what you are doing. The right wing of the GOP proclaim they are tired of judicial activism, but what they are really tired of is LIBERAL judicial activism...RIGHT-WING activism is just fine with them. Myth #4- Changing the Filibustering Rules is a 'Constitutional' Option. Fact #4- While it is completely within their constitutional rights as the majority party to change Senate rules (since the Constitution does not place legal limits on Senate rules procedures), those who framed the Constitution feared above almost everything else, the sort of one-sided control the GOP is currently attempting to install. Mythbusting #4- So the real evil today's society is activist judges...Here's what Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #78: The independence of judges is equally requisite to guard the constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humours which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information and more deliberative reflection, have a tendency in the mean time to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community. So Hamilton is clearly articulating the necessity of the judiciary to confront the overreaching tendency of activist legislation. This is the checks and balances of the Constitution. The judiciary checks the rampant "ill humour" designs of Congress violating the Constitution, and the legislature checks the judiciary by advise and consent of their appointment (and the power of impeachment). Yet the advise and consent, and the impeachment power have a higher threshold (super majority votes) to insure against political retribution and ultimately the independence of the judiciary. It would seem to me that Mr. Frist, Mr. DeLay, and their friends like Dr. James Dobson and his right-wing fundamentalist relgionists seeking a theocracy could do with a refresher course in the Constitution. Ultimately Frist and his friends might succeed in changing the rules in the Senate if they have the simple majority votes. Yet the hubris of a certain faction of the GOP that believes their birthright of rule will result in continued control of government will eventually cost them because at some point either soon or in the future they will again be the minority party and will be forced to live under the extreme rules they today create.