Stentorian Senators vs. The Silent Solicitor.

Stentorian Senators vs. The Silent Solicitor.

Stentorian Senators vs. The Silent Solicitor.

What's happening in our readers' forum.
Feb. 14 2003 1:07 PM

Noises Off

Fray newbies on judicial silence.

Gump? He's up for the 9th Circuit: The article may be about the filibuster, but the Gist Fray is becoming the Movies Fray. First, Joe_JP notes that it's Time To Rent "Mr Smith Goes To Washington", then GarySimpson looks forward to the filibuster with this:

To quote Vin Diesel from XXX ... I live for this shit! There hasn't been a good old knock down drag out back to the wall political brawl since the 60's. What a way to start the new session of Congress.

Here Thrasymachus has the same relish for "a serious, old school, stand-up-and-talk kind of filibuster" but from the other side of the aisle. His movie reference is old school, too.

But enough frivolity. Zathras chimes in  to note that

The complaint that the filibuster is an anti-democratic procedure only makes sense if one does not understand that the Senate was established as an anti-democratic institution. In other words, the house of the national legislature was intended from the beginning to provide a check on the will of the majority.

And while Latinman and Kija may have the best thread going on the recent history of senatorial obstruction here, BeverlyMann has the Valentine's Day metaphor working here:

The Democrats have allowed more than 100 of Bush's judicial nominees to be confirmed for appointment to the bench, a number of them to the appellate bench. It is rote nonsense to state that this filibuster is anything but a mechanism by which to try to remove the federal appellate bench from its current role as a box of Godiva chocolates for the president's ideological base and to restore that bench to its traditional judicial role ... 12:45 p.m.

Stare, stare night: The Readme Fray discussion of Michael Kinsley's attack on the silence of the judicial lambs in the senatorial abattoir has been swamped with traffic. Some of these posts from apparent Fray newcomers deserve more response than they have received:

  1. Telephoneman describes some of the negative consequences for the judiciary if judges were compelled to tell all here;
  2. Alsingle argues that the judicial code of conduct limits what a nominee can say here;
  3. junky—yard-dog deftly distinguishes Republican end-of-term obstructionism from Democratic obstructionism here;
  4. your_Fray_nickname sketches out a scenario here in which senators get a nominee to speak about certain cases under oath in order to force her to toe a particular political line; to yFn, this looks like an end-run around the separation of powers.

(Let's give them a big old Fray welcome and look for future posts …)