If you’re just trying to make a point about the unfairness of the filibuster, then I suppose an argument can be made (although for better or worse the filibuster *is* a part of our political culture). But you seem to be arguing more deeply about the role of political (or other) minorities in America.

I would submit that social change almost *never* happens at the ballot box. Most movements for social change started out as distinct political minorities. Women’s suffrage, labor rights, civil rights, marriage equality for GLBT people — none of these things were accomplished by voting in politicians to do their bidding. The victories came about because of popular struggles (or “battles”, if you will). Probably a lot of tactics of those movements could be seen as “un-democratic” I guess — civil disobedience, sit-ins, etc. In today’s parlance, they would all probably be denigrated as “special interests” trying to thwart the will of the majority.

People certainly do appoint judges sympathetic to their political (often social) point of view.

I must confess, all my information about american judicial appointments is based upon print and electronic media and some times the whole exercise seems quite strange to me.

Sure. Knock yourself out.

while I gave a link to my webpage so that everybody can know who I am,
you hide behind an anonymous nickname to call me “fool”, “idiot” and my views “nonsensical”.
Is it ok that I consider you an Anonymous Coward ?

Well, it is.

The fact that you do not agree with someone on the first reading is not a guarantee that the person is a fool.

That’s true, but here, it happens to be the case that iso is a fool.

If a politician makes a campaign promise and is elected some people will chose to oppose the action, even after the election, while others will say “that’s democracy” and work to convince people that they should support different policies in the future.

What do you mean by “oppose the action”? Isn’t trying to convince people to support different policies in the future a form of “opposing the action”?

His argument that obstructing the President’s ability to do his job is “undemocratic” might be strong, but it is not nonsensical.

It’s not “obstructing” if it’s within the bounds of the law and the rules of the houses of Congress. If the people don’t like the laws and rules that allow such “obstruction,” then they should choose new legislators. Filibusters did not come out of a space pod or through a communist plot; they are a legitimate application of the Senate rules. If enough people get fed up with filibusters, then they will elect Senators who will amend the Senate rules to do away with them. To contend that filibusters were somehow sneaked in under the radar of democracy is indeed nonsensical. The same goes for other forms of “obstruction.”

It is an interesting way that you prepare for battle: alienating your fellow pro-gay-marriage, anti-war, pro-chioce liberal allies.

The fact that iso is a political ally doesn’t mean that he’s not an idiot.

It’s possible I’m alienating iso, but it’s not my intention – we’re discussing. Your sarcasm in the last line is a nice attempt at alienation though – nice job.

Due to my inability to clearly articulate my points in the earliest posts, I deserved the comments from you and Sean insinuating that I was either deluded or “from outer space” (#9) or an idiot (#8).

However, Iso has clearly articulated his point patiently, even after being told that his possition is nonsensical. The fact that you do not agree with someone on the first reading is not a guarantee that the person is a fool.

If a politician makes a campaign promise and is elected some people will chose to oppose the action, even after the election, while others will say “that’s democracy” and work to convince people that they should support different policies in the future. There are certain issues that fall clearly on both sides of this. Even though there is a Republican majority in congress, we want or Democratic representatives to do what they can to minimize the damage. On the other hand, it doesn’t make sense for us to oppose the President’s swearing-in just because we wish he hadn’t been elected (2000 being an exceptional case).

The judicial nomination process is somewhere in the middle. You believe that the minority should do everything they can to prevent any nominee that they don’t love from being appointed. Iso thinks that the minority should only block appointments that are unqualified or unlike what the voters could expect when they elected the President. His argument that obstructing the President’s ability to do his job is “undemocratic” might be strong, but it is not nonsensical.

In your last post you slay a fine straw man. It is an interesting way that you prepare for battle: alienating your fellow pro-gay-marriage, anti-war, pro-chioce liberal allies. I look forward to more strategic surprises.

Gavin

iso42. According to your logic, after the Presidential and mid-term elections, everyone in the country should then remain completely quiet, expressing no opinions and accepting that every act of the government will undoubtedly be one that more than 50% of voters agree with. How many votes do you think Bush would have got if he’d campaigned on the promise “I will outright lie to get this country into an ill-fated war”?

I think we get to express our opinions on every issue at any time and that sometimes this has political effect within the legal political structure that exists. In this sense it is about who I want on the Supreme Court, and about who Gavin wants and who you want, etc. I don’t think the ends justify illegal means. But legal ones seem fine to me. Therefore, expressing my opinions about Supreme Court nominees who I think are very poor choices, and trying to help with opposition to them is perfectly fine, while destroying ballots and knowingly lying about evidence for war are not.

I was not suggesting that you move on. I just meant that we might move on from the topic of whether it was democratic or not, and whether the blog has a specific political stance or not. We appreciate the discussion, and varying opinion.

Sorry if I gave the wrong impression.

-cvj

It is not, or at least should not be, about who you and Mark want on the Supreme Court. It should be about who the US citizens want on the Supreme Court as expressed by voting for a President and Senate.

If you think that it is ok to “battle” this out using whatever loopholes there are you might even succeed. But I would remind you that such an “ends justify the means” phiilosophy can lead you quickly on a slippery slope.

But I appreciate that this is not my message board and will “move on” as cvj has suggested.

1) A very conservative nominee who is well qualified and exactly the sort of nominee that Bush said he would give us during the Presidential campaign.

2) A very conservative nominee who is either an unqualified hack or so far right that even many Bush supporters are startled by his extreme views.

There is no chance that he would appoint someone who you and I would like to have on the supreme court. However, I believe that both 1 and two are real possibilities, and we need to decide what to do in each case. If he picks 2 Mark and I would both vigorously oppose the nomination and we might be able to get some support from conservatives who value competence or moderation. I’d call that a battle.

However, if he picks 1 then democrats are divided. Many think that it is not a good idea to put up a big fight over this type of nominee. Iso expresses one such view. Others might view it as a poor use of resources, as it is doomed to failure. Some consider it poor political strategy, as it is likely to alienate swing voters. I think battling a 1 is a poor idea, but I can understand why many liberals disagree. Because of the division I see the candidate sailing through nomination without much trouble. I wouldn’t call this a battle, but I can see why Mark, who will vigorously oppose a 1, would call it a battle. He’s going to be battling, even if the Senate Democrats just fold.

We could argue over whether Roberts is a 1 or a 2, but based on the rather muted response to his nomination, it appears that the Democrats, at least the ones in the senate, are not gearing up for battle. This suggests to me that they consider him a 1 and are not willing to battle over a 1. Maybe I am misreading the situation.

It was in this context that I responded to Iso’s polite question. Many Democrats want to see the candidate so they can determine if he is a 1 or a 2 because this will determine their response. Mark does not need to wait for the nomination because he is going into battle either way. I don’t think that is productive, but you have my best wishes.

Gavin

Excellent.

-cvj

” Do you consider the process of debating and voting on proposed legislation on the floor of the house or the senate to be part of the democratic process? I think that the founding fathers did.”

Absolutely. I agree with you completely, we both embrace democracy!
The problem with the nominee process is that exactly such a discussion and voting are delayed using all kinds of technicalities and the filibuster rule.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by “trying to change the outcome of elections”. I have never advocated this, although note that it is possible to do this in the U.S., as was done in Florida in 2000.

I do not consider publically expressing my opinion, attempting to rally others, or making it known to senators that there are many people who feel this way to be a) undemocratic, or b) intimidation. I call it democracy, and I think most people (even those with wildly diffferent political views to mine) would also.

I’m curious about something. Do you consider the process of debating and voting on proposed legislation on the floor of the house or the senate to be part of the democratic process? I think that the founding fathers did. A debate is a “battle” in this sense. I don’t think that we’re supposed to sit back and let the people in the white house, and whoever has the majority in the house and senate, do whatever they want for four years. How is the confirmation process for a president’s supreme court nomination not also subject to this democratic process?

Furthermore, “Cosmic Variance” does not express an opnion on anything. Cosmic Variance is not an individual with an identity and a political opnion. There are five people here blogging on the site called “Cosmic Variance”, and we happen to have five different sets of opnion. So your “surprise” about CV “wanting to be part of” anything, is wrong-headed. Get that our of your head. We are five people who can and will express our opnions on or draw attention to any issue without implication that it represents (or not) the opnion of the others.

Having said that, and before anyone runs off with the wrong impression, I must say that I support Mark’s (and earlier, Risa’s) expression of concern that the upcoming debate about nominations and confirmations for the Supreme court is something on which we should all keep an eye and learn more about, and thus informed -if an individual (blog host or reader) so chooses- work hard to make sure that, within the democratic mandate afforded us as taxpayers and voters, the process is properly and thoroughly carried out to whatever ends the individual sees fit.

Thanks for your opinion!

Cheers,

-cvj

as you write yourself “The Supreme Court nominee will be selected by the President and confirmed, or not, by the senate.” Both are currently Republican, expressing the majority
view as of 2004.
As you very well know, there is only an issue because of technicalities around the filibuster loophole(s). Therefore, if there is any “battle” it will be between lawyers and strategists of both
parties. There are also various campaigns of intimidation on both sides to make sure Senators
vote as expected/needed.
I was surprised that “Cosmic Variance” wanted to be part of this “battle”.

I wrote: “it is un-democratic to try and change the outcome of elections by whatever type of “battle”
nothing more and nothing less. I do not think it is difficult to understand this sentence.

PS: And before somebody draws the wrong conclusion, I problably support most of your views.
But I accept that in the US and probably in many other countries I am in the minority.

I’m under no illusion that either of these effects has a high probability, but attempting to make a difference in this way is important, I think, and entirely democratic.

Since you think what I’m saying is nonsensical, perhaps you can articulate what it is you find undemocratic about any suggestion I’ve made. If you can, I’m interested. If not, I suspect you’re following the tried and tested recent fad of accusing anyone who doesn’t agree with the behavior of the current administration of being anti-American.