Interesting happenings from DC: crime rate, buried tech center, implosion rumor, & roughshod riding

[skreidle]

You know a fast food restaurant is in a bad part of town when the entire service area--walk-up and drive-through--is encased in bulletproof glass, with alternate-door pass-throughs for handing off food.. (This is the case with the KFC/Taco Bell on South Capitol near Nation, where I stopped for lunch today after missing the poorly-signed 395 exit after the tunnel.) I was also one of two white people in the entire building for about the first ten minutes, until a small group of white businessmen arrived. (And then I headed over to the office, where I did some paperwork, packed some parts for FedEx to take away, arranged or rescheduled some upcoming service calls, and headed home through heavy traffic. :P)

The DC Office of the Chief Technology Officer (DC OCTO) has an interesting building. Tucked into its own fenced-in block on Massachusetts, it gives the appearance of a smallish industrial shed, which happens to be sitting over several basement levels of computers and offices. However, it's not really bunker-like, since at least one of the "underground" levels has a lot of windows.

Speaking of interesting DC happenings, rumor has it that they'll be imploding the old Convention Center next Monday morning! I wanna see! :)

Hey, check this out: Republicans may be planning to use the tyranny of the majority to quash the "tyranny of the minority"--by making filibusters of judicial nominees unconstitutional--by getting the Senate's presiding officer (Cheney, presumably) to rule as such, which would only need a simple majority to pass, rather than the 60% needed to break a filibuster or 67% to change the rules in normal procedure. Does anyone else see a problem with this?

Comments

[xiaoshira.livejournal.com]

Well, depends on which you think is worse, filibustering of judicial nominees (*not* what the filibustering process was intended for and not what it has been historically used for until recently) or crippling the federal court system by allowing individual people to be essentially refused a confirmation hearing. Nobody's saying that these people should have to be confirmed, just that the should get their chance for an up/down vote. Not only are there a lot of vacancies that hurt BAD, but there are individual people with their lives on a roller coaster because of this. I take issue with the political litmus tests that are driving the filibusters (and the nominees for that matter), but I definitely don't think it's a *good* thing that this is happening, and I don't think it's a bad thing to consider prohibiting it in order to stop it.

That said, in the end I come down on the side that I don't think the rules should be changed, for the record. Qualifying that, I don't think the judiciary should be as politicized as it is, because I don't think they should have as much power as they do. Filibustering is the lesser of the evils for me, but the whole thing is part of a huge evil that I think shouldn't exist in its current form.

[banzai2326.livejournal.com]

I don't disagree that perhaps the filibuster has been used too frequently, but a grand total of 10 out of 243 judicial nominees has been blocked. Since when does 5% count as obstructionism? Oh, by the way, Republicans blocked Clinton's nominees left and right. They're just pissed that they're on the losing end of the same stick they themselves once used.

And besides, the filibuster has been used for centuries. It was designed as the last resort of the minority, to keep the majority from silencing dissent, which is exactly what Senate Republicans are trying to do. If they succeed in removing this last bastion of the minority, then heaven help them when Democrats re-take the Senate. You reap what you sow.

[xiaoshira.livejournal.com]

I'm really just pointing out that there are two sides of this issue, and that neither is a side I like. As I believe I stated, the filibuster remaining as is is the lesser of two evils, and I would keep it as is if it were up to me. But to address your points:

5% is obstructionism when the judiciary is so under"staffed" that significant numbers of meritorious claims are being dismissed or refused cert in my circuit, and it's very difficult to achieve justice in a large number of the claims that do get heard! Liberal minded people tend especially not to like these things...

I think a couple, maybe a handful of Clinton's nominees were blocked? Either way, the point is, that's kind of irrelevant for the purposes of fixing the problem - we can't just let this go on without stopping to think because the other guy did it first.

And that's all I'm advocating - stopping to think. Something does need to be done, either within the nomination process or maybe on an even larger scale if things were done my way (as in, keep the judiciary's power in check such that judges aren't making political decisions from the bench, and they won't be as controversial). This is a proposal I'm not particularly fond of, though I unabashedly state that I do not believe the filibuster was intended for this purpose and that it is not a *good* thing. For now, it is a necessary evil that has come to bear because of how jurisprudence has evolved. It's definitely worth thinking about ways to improve the situation.

Brief history lesson

[jazzfish]

from Political Animal. "Bottom line: Yes, Democrats are filibustering some of George Bush's judges, but they're doing it only because Republicans have relentlessly dismantled all the avenues of dissent they themselves took advantage of back when Democrats controlled the Senate. There's no principle involved in this, just a raw exercise of power."

Re: Brief history lesson

[xiaoshira.livejournal.com]

I don't think there's any need to be condescending. I said that there were angles of this issue, like the fact that the judiciary is in real, actual trouble, that need to be considered extremely thoughtfully. I also came out on what appears to be your side of the issue.

Re: Brief history lesson

[jazzfish]

I apologise if I came across as condescending. I'd noted the Political Animal post when it was made, expecting to hear about the judicial filibuster from other of my acquaintances. Being given a chance to put it to use was too much to pass up, but I was too tired to actually make any rational argument to go along with it. (Said argument basically consisting of "you're right, but I don't think social liberals can afford to try and play nice," only better thought out and phrased.)

[standby-go.livejournal.com]

Yep. And this is just the beginning. After receiving such a strong mandate from the American people (or slightly over 50% of them anyway), the Republicans have every intention of silencing any and all dissent. They've also become big fans of making rule changes to benefit themselves. I for one, can't wait to be arrested for holding up my "Congress of Evil," "House of Misrepresentation," and "Divided States of America" signs. Hell, I contributed to the Dean campaign. I'm probably already the target of several FBI investigations just for that one abuse of power. At this point, I'm ready to start the civil disobedience. Anyone know of any organizations I could join?

[xiaoshira.livejournal.com]

So, let me get this straight, because Bush Is Evil, we shouldn't stop and think about the negative effects of filibustering on the justice system?

The fact that I get this sort of response to simply pointing out that filibustering of judicial nominees for seats which remain open in the absence of a confirmation DOES hurt the "little guy," and that we need to think about that, is, well, enlightening. If you believe Bush Is Evil, that's fine, but it doesn't really get at the point I'm trying to make, which is that curbing the filibuster is an example of a poor proposed solution to a problem that *does need to be solved*.

[standby-go.livejournal.com]

Certainly it's a problem which needs to be solved. But let's think about why the Republican party has chosen Right Now as the time to address this issue while they said nothing about it during the 90's when they filibustered one nominee after another. The little guy shouldn't *have* to resort to the filibuster. But when faced with an option of either a filibuster or a judicial nominee who is not going to act in the interest of democracy and freedom, what options are we left with? As long as left wing and right wing politicians force extremist nominees upon one another, the filibuster solution will remain necessary. Either party trying to outlaw it in order to put extremists on the bench is counterproductive and is an insult to the principles upon which our democracy is based. Let's look for politically independent candidates who are not interested in catering to any specific special interest group so that they can gain access to a really nice yacht for their vacations.

[xiaoshira.livejournal.com]

Okay, we're apparently confusing little guys. I'm talking about the little guy with no money for a lawyer who wants to appeal his criminal conviction in the Sixth Circuit. You're talking about the little guy as a synonym for the Democratic Party, which... well, wow. WOW.

interest of democracy and freedom
Last I heard, we were talking about abortion. Let's just call a spade a spade, hm? In terms of democracy, nothing about this process is remotely democratic. Know why? Because judges aren't supposed to legislate, they're supposed to apply the law. The thing is, the fault does not lie with either the Republicans or the Democrats for the fact that this is a political process - it lies with Supreme Court substantive due process jurisprudence. The parties are just fighting like hell to twist it to their advantage.

Let's look for politically independent candidates who are not interested in catering to any specific special interest group so that they can gain access to a really nice yacht for their vacations.

Well, I still say that the filibustering is really all about abortion, and abortion-like issues, so this accusation in particular is kind of silly. It's not going to be a productive argument if you're wedded to the "Republican/Bush Is Evil" as an argument for or against the role of the judiciary, or about what the role of a federal circuit court judge actually is.

[visgoth.livejournal.com]

It has ceased to even have a pretense of being about the country.

The Republicans and Democrats are only interested in showing off to one another which of them has more power at any given moment.

[xiaoshira.livejournal.com]

Which, in the context of justice for people who wish to appeal in the Sixth Circuit, is disgusting.

[banzai2326.livejournal.com]

At the risk of turning skreidle's journal into a battleground...

I agree with xiaoshira that "just because the other guy did it" is no excuse. That said, regardless of the Democrats' motivations, Republicans can hardly justify criticism of the tactics they themselves employed.

And I disagree with visgoth that this is just about a display of power. It's about the right to be heard, and attempts by the majority to ensure that the minority is not heard.

Finally, if President Bush and the Republicans really cared about filling vacant seats, they would retract their controversial nominees and put forth more moderate ones. But it's far more useful, politically, for them to stand their ground and use this as a wedge issue to make Democrats look like obstructionists. So I would look carefully before you start blaming Democrats for the state of the judiciary.

[xiaoshira.livejournal.com]

I would look carefully before you start accusing me of doing that. Because if you read everything I wrote, I never did. Once.

[banzai2326.livejournal.com]

"5% is obstructionism when the judiciary is so under'staffed' that significant numbers of meritorious claims are being dismissed or refused cert in my circuit, and it's very difficult to achieve justice in a large number of the claims that do get heard! Liberal minded people tend especially not to like these things..."

I believe this is the sentiment I was responding to. It comes across that liberals (read Democrats) do not like justice. If I mistook your meaning, then I apologize for projecting my anger at Republicans onto you. If, however, I correctly interpreted your comment, then I don't see how you can expect me to not take that as blaming the Democrats for the state of the judiciary.

[xiaoshira.livejournal.com]

Just to clarify, just because I don't think this is all the Republicans' fault (from the reaction I've gotten in this thread, I'm starting to think that it's hard for some people to imagine the thought of anybody *not* blaming it all on the evil Republicans!), and because I don't condone the filibustering of judicial nominees on a conceptual basis, is a far cry from "blaming Democrats for the state of the judiciary." As I note above, the state of the judiciary is not something either party is responsible for, just something they've reacted to. And I certainly didn't give either party the upper hand in their response, I just don't like the way either has responded. Even by accusing me of doing so, you're not going to get me to put this in terms of good guys, bad guys, because that is simply not the way I believe this issue should be viewed, and I believe viewing it that way detracts from the truly important issue and masks the necessity of both sides to be willing to look past this stupid polarized culture and FIX IT.

[standby-go.livejournal.com]

from the reaction I've gotten in this thread, I'm starting to think that it's hard for some people to imagine the thought of anybody *not* blaming it all on the evil Republicans!

I think your perception of others' views is painted a bit by your own personal biases. While most of us here do seem to feel that the "evil Republicans" are not considering blocking the filibuster for judicial nominees in the interest of the common good, we have also placed a good deal of the blame for the situation on Democrats. Some examples of this, lest my assertion be attacked:

They're just pissed that they're on the losing end of the same stick they themselves once used.

from Political Animal. "Bottom line: Yes, Democrats are filibustering some of George Bush's judges, but they're doing it only because Republicans have relentlessly dismantled all the avenues of dissent they themselves took advantage of back when Democrats controlled the Senate. There's no principle involved in this, just a raw exercise of power."

As long as left wing and right wing politicians force extremist nominees upon one another, the filibuster solution will remain necessary. Either party trying to outlaw it in order to put extremists on the bench is counterproductive and is an insult to the principles upon which our democracy is based.


We all (and correct me if I'm wrong here, folks) seem to be saying that the process is flawed and that both Democrats and Republicans have abused the system. The problem that we have with this latest move on the part of Republicans is that it's extremely hypocritical as the filibuster is the same device they were using when they were the minority. Additionally, describing the filibustering of nominees as a huge problem seems ridiculous when Democrats have confirmed 24 out of every 25 of Bush's nominees to this point, a much higher margin than would ordinarily be expected.