?

Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous Next Next
Note to people calling themselves conservative - The Phantom Librarian
Spewing out too many words since November 2003
fernwithy
fernwithy
Note to people calling themselves conservative
Voting to radically realign filibuster practices is not a conservative vote. It's a radical vote. Radical=nonconservative. You can be rightist and radical, but you can't be conservative and radical. They're more or less antonyms. Conservatives believe in stability and not rushing headlong into changes we're not prepared for. We're cautious. We tend to subscribe to "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." And we tend not to think of things as "broke" until they are actually nonfunctional--meaning, not working as intended to work, which does not include "I can't pass a bill/nomination/motion/etc that I want just 'cause people disagree with me, waaaah." Hence, we are not radicals. If that means that sometimes liberals get their way through perfectly traditional parliamentary practices, then so be it. That's life in a sane democracy or republic; better luck next time. That's conservatism. As Buckley put it, we're standing on the engine of history yelling "STOP!"... not flooring the gas pedal.

So please, if you want to be a radical rightist, that's your Constitutional right. Believe as you please, even if you're wrong. But it's not being conservative. Kthnxbai.

(For context's sake, this rant inspired by "conservative" groups vowing revenge on Republicans who made the deal about filibusters. Grrr.)
23 comments or Leave a comment
Comments
sophonax From: sophonax Date: May 25th, 2005 05:05 pm (UTC) (Link)
This is why I consider myself conservative in everything *except* politics... :)
From: nothing_gold Date: May 25th, 2005 05:25 pm (UTC) (Link)
*applauds* I an tempted to print this out and show it to some certain people I know. I got into a lovely argument with someone just last week about how just because someone is anti-right-wing-crazies does not mean they're anti-conservative. While my overall leanings are liberal, I'm conservative about certain issues. So why the heck would I be anti-conservative? *headdesk*

"Liberal" and "conservative" are two of the most misused, misunderstood words in the English language. Listening to people abuse them is equally as painful to me as hearing people equate Communists with the Nazis. *cries*
straussmonster From: straussmonster Date: May 25th, 2005 05:28 pm (UTC) (Link)
I'd give you the link to The Rude Pundit's commentary on this subject, but I don't quite think he's your style. Funny, though. :)
dreagoddess From: dreagoddess Date: May 25th, 2005 05:43 pm (UTC) (Link)
Amen! As much as I believe the nominees deserve a vote after this long, I was NOT in support of changing the fillibuster rules. I think it'd be turned against us far more than it would benefit. I was very glad to see a compromise worked out in advance of the doubtlessly-rancorous and doubtlessly-soon Supreme Court confirmation hearings.
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
hughroe From: hughroe Date: May 25th, 2005 06:16 pm (UTC) (Link)
Let's see, it's 2005, the only Judicial filibuster before these were on Fortias, from associate justice to chief justice. That was under the old rules, where the person had to keep talking for the filibuster, not that Fortias had the votes for confirmation anyway. Then, under new installed rules, in 4 years time 10 Judicial nominees, who cleared commitee, are denied floor votes. Not for conflict of intrest and ethics violations as was Fortias, but because they don't believe in making law from the bench.

Yes I'm radical, but to hear "longstanding" applied to rules that were only made after I retired from the Navy...ehhh.

I am a supporter of limited Government and maximum Individual Liberty, which puts me in oppisition to many "conservatives" and just about every "Liberal".

What is Radical is using a nominee's Judicial Philosophy as the grounds for filibuster. So what we have is a group that says "We've lost the White House, we've lost the Senate, we've lost the House of Representatives, we've got to hold on to the Judiciary!"

To me, that sounds "broke".
(Deleted comment)
hughroe From: hughroe Date: May 25th, 2005 10:53 pm (UTC) (Link)
Repealing laws is also legislating from the bench. Moving to undo Social Security from the bench? That should be allowed? Overturning the non-establishment clause in the First Amendment without an actual amendment--that's not legislating from the bench?

Well, let's see this out...

Repealing laws is legisating from the bench, but what laws have been repealed by these nominees? Prop 200? DOMAs in various states? It's being done all over, the major gripe against Owens was that she ENFORCED Texas state law on parental notification.

The rest of your comments consists of strawman arguements: what lawsuit is there against Social Security?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" This the clause you were talking about? The one that prohibits the congress from passing a law saying that everyone who holds any Federal Office must be, oh, how about Methodist? See an Originalist would know what that clause meant, No State Religion, not that a memorial cross on federal land has to be torn down.

(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
bluemeanies4 From: bluemeanies4 Date: May 25th, 2005 07:10 pm (UTC) (Link)
They changed the rule on talking? Because if they did, that's stupid. The filibuster depended on how long you could read the phonebook/your mother's recipes/your memoir and remain standing. It's like a marathon and you have to be willing to put in that effort. To filibuster without it is plain cheap, and bad C-SPAN.
hughroe From: hughroe Date: May 25th, 2005 10:54 pm (UTC) (Link)
yeah, now it's just the claim that a filibuster is in effect
rabidsamfan From: rabidsamfan Date: May 25th, 2005 08:53 pm (UTC) (Link)
What changed four years ago was not the rules of the filibuster, but the loss of other courtesies which the majority party extended to the minority party. You have to qualify yourself with "who cleared committee" knowing perfectly well that none of those ten filibusters would have been necessary if the blue slip rule was being used as it was (extensively) under Clinton, or if Bush had consulted the Democrats for a list of acceptable candidates, as presidents before him have many a time.

Using a nominee's Judicial Philosophy as a measure of fitness for the bench strikes me as the most appropriate of all possible considerations. What else did you have in mind? The color of his/her skin?
hughroe From: hughroe Date: May 25th, 2005 11:02 pm (UTC) (Link)
4 years ago, thanks to Jim Jeffords, the Democrats were the Majority party.

Didn't agree with 'Blue Slipping' either.

Judicial Philosophy is a decent reason in my mind, as to wheter you would vote for or against the candidate, not to deprive other Senators of the right to decide if the candidate's Philosophy is 'outside the mainstream'

But do you honestly think Ginsberg would have made it the Supreme Court if "Judicial Philosophy" had been the guiding light of her vote?
rabidsamfan From: rabidsamfan Date: May 25th, 2005 11:33 pm (UTC) (Link)
You picked the timeline, not me. The plain fact remains it was the Republicans who took down the barriers other than filibuster which were available to the minority party when it came to judicial appointees, not the Democrats. And that according to the rules of the Senate it takes sixty votes, not fifty one, to change the rules.

From your other comments I see that you favor the Originalists, in which case I strongly suggest that you go and reread the debates about the Bill of Rights, and why the Constitution nearly wasn't signed by several members of the Convention until they were assured that those Amendments would be pursued.

Again and again in the Constitution we find checks upon power and guarantees to protect the rights of the minority. If "majority rules" were the only consideration, then the 51% of the population represented by the Democratic Senators would override the Republicans, after all.

That you disagree with Ginsberg's philosophy doesn't mean it didn't come into consideration. I haven't read up on her, and don't recall much about the appointment. But Clarence Thomas ain't no prize either....
hughroe From: hughroe Date: May 26th, 2005 12:32 am (UTC) (Link)
Well, Blue slipping was introduced and changed since I've been alive.

I am very familiar with the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debates, thank you for the suggestion though.

The checks and balences that every one seems to have suddenly remembered were set between branches of the federal government and between the federal government and the states.

And I didn't choose the timeline, Daschle did.

kelleypen From: kelleypen Date: May 25th, 2005 06:27 pm (UTC) (Link)
This is off topic, and I don't know if you'll hate this or love this, but I found it fascinating. http://hatrack.com/revengeofthesith.shtml
Just don't shoot me.
fernwithy From: fernwithy Date: May 25th, 2005 07:37 pm (UTC) (Link)
Oh, I know Card on Lucas. I ignore him.
(no subject) - feylin17 - Expand
fernwithy From: fernwithy Date: May 25th, 2005 09:50 pm (UTC) (Link)
I don't understand why people think one side or the other should be totaly in control.
I know. It's weird. One thing I like about Massachusetts is that we have a legislature that's over 90% Democratic, but have routinely had Republican governors. General thought being that they can put the brakes on each other unless it's something people really want.
hughroe From: hughroe Date: May 26th, 2005 12:42 am (UTC) (Link)
One thing I like about Massachusetts is that we have a legislature that's over 90% Democratic, but have routinely had Republican governors. General thought being that they can put the brakes on each other unless it's something people really want.

Nah, I don't mind checks when they are like that, even though those percentages do promise a veto proof majority, but that's what was voted for.



darreldoomvomit From: darreldoomvomit Date: May 26th, 2005 12:22 am (UTC) (Link)
this is completly off topic, but you mentioned buckley, and i thought i'd put out this little tidbit for someone who might actually care and know what i'm talking about. through some strange chain of events im not so sure about, my grandmother is on the cover of the 25th anniversary cover of the national review. im friends with left wing canadian teenagers, so that means very little them, but i think a few people who watch this lj might appreciate it.
23 comments or Leave a comment