The Senate and Filibustering

So it's come to this it seems.

Fairly soon, there will be some kind of showdown in the Senate over the use of filibusters as they pertain to blocking President Bush's judicial nominees.

Is this a big deal? Yes, it's a huge deal. First, a little history.

A filibuster is a rule in the Senate that's been in place since that body was first created in the 1780's. It's essentially an obstructionist tool that keeps some item from reaching a vote - it can be long speeches, or procedural motions - anything that keeps an item from reaching the floor for an "up or down" vote.

The Senate, if anything, is proud of its traditions, and filibusters are about as traditional as you can get. In fact, there weren't any rules to somewhat limit the power of a filibuster for over 120 years until rules were passed in 1917 that provided for "cloture", or a vote to end debate with a 2/3 vote.

So back to filibusters. Anyone can basically go on about anything during a speech for filibuster purposes. Senator Huey Long talked about recipes; Strom Thurmond, to block civil rights legislation, went on for 24 hours straight. Both parties have done it, and both will continue doing it. But maybe not for judicial nominees.

The Republicans in the Senate claim that the body is skirting its constitutional duty by not following Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution : "{The President} ... shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:...". That's the line the Republicans keep going back to. And by not moving forward on a final vote, the Democrats are blocking a two hundred-year plus tradition of allowing votes to occur.

The Democrats, on the other hand, claim that there is a long history of the filibuster, that the Republicans have used it many times, including to block judicial nominations, and that to change the rules mid-stream would be unwise and unfair.

So some analysis -

1) Have the Republicans used the filibuster on judicial nominations in the past?

Yes, in fact they did it to a potential Supreme Court Chief Justice in 1968- when Earl Warren indicated that he would be retiring, Pres. Johnson nominated Abe Fortas. According to all the sources I've ready, Johnson likely had the votes in the Senate to get Fortas through, a filibuster was initiated by the Republicans after it was revealed that Fortas received a privately funded stipend, equivalent to 40 percent of his Court salary, to teach an American University summer course. Probably a good reason to do so, but yes, it has happened (and there are other times Republicans have).

2) What's the comparison between Bush Jr. and other modern presidents in getting his judicial nominations through?

Here's a great chart showing the last 50 years or so - http://dalythoughts.com/index.php?p=2983

Summarized-

President Confirmation Percentage
Truman 81.8%
Eisenhower 90.2%
Kennedy/Johnson 89.7%
Nixon/Ford 89.1%
Carter 91.8%
Reagan 81.3%
G.H.W. Bush 77.8%
Clinton 61.3%
G.W. Bush 52.2%


Bush Jr. isn't doing too hot. And I quote from the website : "In total, President Clinton nominated 90 people to be Circuit Court justices during the four Congresses during his term. 66 were eventually confirmed. The eventual confirmation rate for his nominees was 73%. He had 13 nominees who were returned but eventually confirmed; the subsequent Congress confirmed 12 of those. Of the 20 returns that Clinton had during his first three Congresses (where he would be in term for a subsequent Congress), he renominated 16 (80%) of them. Over 80% of them were eventually confirmed, with a full three-quarter confirmed in the very next Congress.

In the 107th Congress, President Bush nominated 31 new people to be Circuit Court justices. 19 have eventually been confirmed, for an eventual confirmation rate of 61.2%, compared to Clinton’s 100% eventual confirmation rate for his first Congress’ nominations. Only two of President Bush’s renominations were confirmed by the subsequent Congress– 15.4%.

In aggregate, President Bush has nominated, for the first time, 52 distinct individuals to be Circuit Court justices. 34 have been confirmed, for an aggregate eventual confirmation rate of 65%, 8% lower than President Clinton’s despite the fact that three quarters of Clinton’s term had the Senate controlled by the Republicans."

Here's another good site with the same info - http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2005/04/obstructionism.html

What does all these numbers mean? Bush has had fewer judges confirmed to the United States Circuit Courts, the Courts right below the Supreme Court. Clinton, historically, is low too, but Bush Jr. has the lowest success rate (depending on your point of view) of any US president.

So what's going on here? Basically, the Democrats are trying to block a number of judges they think are too right wing. The Republicans are tired of it, as they've had the fewest number of judges confirmed to Circuit Court than any other president. They've decided to go nuclear. Is this a good idea? Not really, as it 1) totally changes the rules midstream and 2) doesn't do the Republicans any good when there's a Democratic President.

We'll know shortly if we all REALLY DO need to move to Canada soon.

Albert Fujimori, that interesting?

A few of us went to go see this documentary about Albert Fujimori, the former President of Peru, who came from nowhere to become that country's leader in the 1990's. As you can tell by his last name, he doesn't have a Spanish background, as his family is Japanese. Anyway, he was embroiled in scandal eventually, and left the country.

The movie is part of the SF International Film Festival. We went, thinking, hey, people will likely have much better things to do on a Friday night than see a documentary about a former Peruvian president. We guessed wrong. Not only was the show sold out over a half hour before it was set to begin, there were 50 people in the "rush" line to see if they could get in. Is this city really full of that many people who want to see a movie about Albert Fujimori? I doubt it. I think it's because this city (San Francisco) just doesn't have a lot to do period.

San Francisco thinks it's a lot bigger than it really is. Don't get me wrong, I do really like it here, I just wish it had about twice as many people so it could reach that critical mass where things stayed open! It's pretty ridiculous when the major "hip" shopping areas in Hayes Valley and Cow Hollow shut down by 7 pm on a Friday or Saturday. That's ridiculous. And as for art or theatre, there isn't a whole lot going on. There are some shows, but most theatre is simply to expensive and runs too long for it to really impact most people. There is a good music scene though.

I suppose people were faced with another night trolling the bars, sitting at home watching something from Netflix, or seeing the Fujimori documentary.

San Francisco, the little city that thinks it could.

Daniel Libeskind, Rock Star Architect

Last night I went with some friends to see a lecture by Daniel Libeskind. For those of you who don't know who he is, he is an architect that has risen to fame in the US primarily because of his winning design for the World Trade Center site, the so-called "Freedom Tower" and associated buildings.

He spoke inside a temple at a local synagogue. Apparently there was some kind of communication error, as he let us know that we wasn't allowed to use any kind of visual projectors in the synagogue. Weird that this wasn't communicated, but also weird that he thought he could just set up power point in there.

Regardless, he spent the next hour simply talking about architecture. And even though he's one of those typical, esoteric artsy weirdos who loves his own voice, it was fascinating. It was really amazing to see an architect working a room on his WORDS and not the images of his buildings and projects. Granted, I'm a bit biased here, as I love this kind of stuff. But there were plenty of normal people in there who were obviously in a trance over what he was saying.

Although I'm sure that my friends' interpretation will be different, this is what I took away from last night - it's not about the design of the building, it's about its connection to people. Fortunately for Libeskind and those in his profession, good architecture, whatever that is, connects people to the building better than bad architecture. But a striking building isn't just something to look at; it's a place that reminds us of what once was and what can be again; it can make a person's life easier by giving them something to dream about. And Libeskind's work has arguably done that.

Now the question is, is what's going on at Ground Zero a good thing from a planning perspective?

http://www.daniel-libeskind.com/

http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans
/Freedom_Tower/freedom_tower_dec_19.asp

Musings of a Dodger fan in San Francisco

Yes, I said it, and I say it with pride - I am a dodger fan in san Francisco. hell, I actually wear my dodgers cap to games. suicidal I know. brave, yes. admirable, of course.

I was born and raised just north of la, valencia (magic mountain for all those who have no idea where valencia is). my father was (and is) an avid dodgers fan. I basically grew up with this team, and (likely in order to impress my dad) used to call dodger talk when I was 8 to ask the sportscasters stuff about my favourite players.

flash forward 22+ years later, one strike later, and only one stinking world series appearance later (at least we won giants fans!), I still am a fan. I've lived in san Francisco off and on, mostly on, for nearly 8 years now. and I probably see 75% of the dodger giants games when there here.

being a white male, this is probably the closest I'll ever get to discrimination. just one example - my lady friend and I (she's gonna kill me that I called her that, sorry FIANCE!!) were walking to the game, and I had my cap on. we stopped in a sandwich place on the way down, and I swear, she asked for three or four different types of sandwiches, only to be told "sorry, we're out of this" or "oops, we're out of that". this is a poorly run business, i'm thinking. just before a game, hundreds streaming by, and wow, they're already out of food. then I remember the cap. then I see them serve someone else.

I was discriminated against. i've been called a Fucking bastard asshole. i've had food thrown at me. I had someone call me dirt, and mean it. i'm not really sure why there's this anger, given that when i've seen giants fans at dodger stadium, I just don't care (given that I don't usually arrive at the game in la until the 2nd inning like the rest of dodgers fans).

it's led me to think about why we love our teams, and we love to hate the other side. we are all competitors. period. nothing makes us feel better than being with a group of people who hate another group of people (well, until we decide the people in our group deserve our hate too). there is something inherent in our nature that makes us want to be different, just different enough so we're not too different to be noticed. sports allow us to do that. Sports allows us to take all that anger from the week, all that frustration, and lob it at someone else in a socially acceptable manner. which is just hilarious to me, because if one applied this principle to their hatred of some other "group", say, asians, they'd have some serious problems.

my point being this: love a sports team and yell and scream and act like an idiot. better you do it there.

New Pope

So we have a new pope. well, you have a new pope. i don't have much, and i don't have a new pope. because i never had an old one.

a 78-year old "transitional pope". This is a concept that does not make much sense to me. what is the catholic church trying to transition to? if you're going to make a transition, just do it.

interestingly enought though, even though i am not a religious person, i think benedict is a pretty good choice. i know that i will get a lot of flack from my one reader (thanks baby) for this statement. but this is my take. religion is not something that you should be able to pick from. what's the point if you, as a mere mortal, get to decide what parts you like and what parts you don't like? especially when you look at something as dogmatic and (let's just say it) strict as Catholicism.

there are a lot of "cafeteria catholics" out there, picking and choosing what parts they like and what to have in their lives. But what's the point? if this is the word of god through christ, then shouldn't you buy it lock, stock and barrel? If it's the word of god through men, then how can you buy any of it? wouldn't it just be better to say you believe in the spirit of the words?

my point being this - benedict, being the keeper of the faith for 20 years, being the previous pope's right hand man, being the one responsible in the church for keeping down liberal thought, being the one who ensured as strict a reading of the bible as possible (given simple world reality, as well as the changes he says he's embraced from the second vatican ecumenical council - he's exactly the guy for catholocism. yay benedict.

Let me be clear though - I am not saying that if you interpret the Bible or the Koran or any other texts in your own way to make it work for you that you're a bad person. I just don't understand how you can.

What, Me Rant?

Well here goes.

As i Usually am about three to five years late on any "new thing" or "fad", i figured that meant it was time for me to start a blog. probably a lot like other blogs too, but what the hell? in this day, when anything printed is taken literally by at least someone out there, it's time for my own brand of wit and perspective to make the scene.

what will i rant about? probably pretty much everything. politics, movies, music, my friends (well no i won't do that), culture, san francisco (where i live), food... whatever. and i would love your feedback. tell me i'm right on or totally full of it.

so come back soon.

jeremy