 |
|
Monday, May 9, 2005
previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (0)
John Dean Weighs In
... on the filibuster here. Dean was there in the Nixon years when the old deference to presidential prerogrative collapsed in the wake of the filibuster of Fortas. (I discovered his expertise on the subject in 2001 when I reviewed his book The Rehnquist Choice. ["Clowns in Gowns"? -- Ed. As the journalists out there know, writers do not choose the heds for their articles.]) posted by on 05.09.05 at 10:27 PMComments: Dean's Findlaw piece is not accurate. See here http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=422 posted by: Andrew Hyman on 05.09.05 at 10:27 PM [permalink]Andrew - this rebuttal is not accurate. The RedState.org author argues that since the intent of Sen. Robert Griffin to use the filibuster cannot be proven to be intentional, and since we do not know if LBJ could summon the necessary "up or down" votes (whereas we're sure Bush could), it is not the same as today's DFL filibuster. Intent doesn't matter. That's "the end justfies the means" logic. The filibuster WAS used - whatever it's intent - because it was available. It is a Constitutionally-provided congressional tool. And the GOP used it successfully in 1968 to block the nomination of Abe Fortas to the Supreme Court. posted by: wishIwuz2 on 05.09.05 at 10:27 PM [permalink]Post a Comment: |
  |