Senator Robert Byrd: Senate History Buff Or Hypocrite?
Joe Gandelman
Senator Robert Byrd was at the center of a controversy this week when he delivered a blistering speech about GOPers in Congress considering the "nuclear option" — changing the rules so filibusters on judicial nominees can end. The text of his speech is here.
His speech, which had references to Nazi Germany in it, generated a storm of criticism from many on the right and center right, including one writer who called him "Bryd Brain." Others have defended him. And his office said he was not comparing the GOP to Nazis at all.
Byrd also made his case forcefilly on the op-ed pages of the Washington Post yesterday. Byrd is sometimes called the historian of the Senate.
Political scientist Steven Taylor, however, did some history research of his own and he has concluded that Byrd is a hypocrite. Read this and let us know what you think.
And what about the much greater hypocrisy of Republicans pretending that there is something unspeakably awful about filibustering judicial nominations, despite the fact that they attempted to do the same thing to some of Clinton's nominees? I think that's a much stronger case of hypocrisy.
I'm very glad that Senator Byrd, a Southern Democrat with whom I have often disagreed, criticized FDR's infamous and un-Constitutional attempt to pack the Supreme Court with judges who would be subservient to his agenda. President Roosevelt's warping of our jurisprudence was, in my opinion, by far the most disastrous effect of his New Deal program. We have still not recovered from that. I also oppose, as did many Conservatives at the time, the vitiation of the rules of cloture in 1975. I support the filibuster, the seniority system, and all the other "antiquated" rules which have long been established by our Senate to govern itself and to maintain itself as a deliberative body and a powerful check against the power of the executive. You may call it obstructionism, you may call it gridlock. Our Founding Fathers called it checks and balances.
As to the reference to Hitler in Senator Byrd's speech, I say that they cheapen the memory of the millions of victims of the National Socialist regime who imply that the past is irrelevant to the present and that we cannot learn from history. Those who will not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. If today's Republicans continue in their short-sighted path, we may someday see a President Hillary Clinton using the powers they gave her to ram down their throats an agenda of her own that they will not like too much. It only takes "a village" of short-sighted politicians, out to get what they want by any means fair or foul, to undermine our Constitutional system of checks and balances that protects their own liberties.
The first rule in government is this: Never give to government any power that you would not wish to see in the hands of your worst enemy. Our Founding Fathers understood that very well. That is why they wrote our Constitution in the first place.
But this gets me to something I've noticed after 20 years of observing the Congress: whenever someone says something is "unprecedented," usually in alarmist terms, you should usually take that to mean, "they're doing something which is perfectly allowable under the rules and I really don't like it."
It's unprecedented to routinely filibuster judicial nominees? So what? If it's allowed, and they feel strongly about it, so be it.
It's unprecedented to remove the filibuster on judicial nominees to get around that? Yeah, and so what?
Unprecedented means "hasn't been done before." And I usually find that whether you like the "unprecedented" action usually depends on whether you like that action or not.
I have a hard time getting worked up over this either way. The People for the American Way can have their spastic apoplectic fits over it if they want, as can Grover Norquist, and I just don't care either way.
Getting worked up over procedural rules in the House or Senate strikes me as something that is a waste of time for the average voter, it really does.
If y'all want another perspective, try this out...
I don't see why a person can't be both.
Although I think Byrd is only a hypocrite, not that this is unusual or anything in a senator.
Read my post again and I think you'll find that I'm conceding the hypocrisy point wrt Sen. Byrd. My argument is only that the article Joe linked to presents a very thin case, which it does.
Dean, thank you for actually responding to my point. I will return the favor, if you don't mind. I don't know what you mean exactly by "everyday tactic". The Democrats have filibustered a few of Bush's nominees, and also confirmed many many more. Even when the Dems briefly controlled the Senate, Bush's nominees had a much higher confrmation rate than Clinton's. And that's the big picture here.
There are more ways than just a filibuster to torpedo a nominee. Or, at least, there used to be, until Orrin Hatch rewrote the rules to take the tools away from the Democrats that the Republicans had used so well against Clinton's nominees. The filibuster is all the Dems have left. That's why they've used it more.
Plus, it's worked. If the Republicans had ever managed to successfully filibuster one of Clinton's nominees, I'm sure they would have used the tactic more often than they did.
"Well, personally, I don't think a Senator whose previous titles include "Kleagle" really ought to be comparing Republican tactics to Hitler's."
Senator Byrd wasn't vomparing President Bush or Republicans to Hitker. In fact, he compared Bush to FDR. He was using Hitler as the ultimate example of the danger of weakening the legislative branch in order to give more power to the executive branch. As I said, he wasn't thinking merely in terms of the immediate moment, this particular administration, but of the long term, a future administration which could take advantage of the powers ceded to it by this Congress, using those powers for ends that Republicans would not like.
This is one of those reasons why I despise the fact that most Americans don't care about numbers or basic simple math. It makes it too easy for politicians on both sides of the aisle to play these games (and I've been watching long enough to know they BOTH do it just as much as each other--indeed, Democratic leaders these days in their complaints sound eerily like Newt Gingrich and his Contract With America compatriots ten years ago, and not that when I say that I'm not being sarcastic and it is not a criticism).
Senator Byrd wasn't comparing President Bush or Republicans to Hitler. In fact, he compared Bush to FDR.
He was using Hitler as the ultimate example of the danger of weakening the legislative branch in order to give more power to the executive branch. As I said, he wasn't thinking merely in terms of the immediate moment, this particular administration, but of the long term, a future administration which could take advantage of the powers ceded to it by this Congress, using those powers for ends that Republicans would not like.
No, I think he was comparing the Senate Republicans to Hitler — at the minimum, he was making a point that might have been made very easily without bringing Hitler into it. It was needless and harmful rhetorical overkill. Especially as the proposed filibuster "reform" wouldn't change the balance among the branches of government, but the balance of power between majority and minority within one branch.
Does that favor the current executive? Of course it does. But it doesn't permanently change the balance of powers among the branches. The Congress and the Presidency belong to opposite parties at least as often as not, IIRC. I can see how weakening the filibuster gives the majority party more power vis a vis the minority party in Congress; but how it alters structurally the relations among the branches I can't see.
And comparing Bush to FDR in his court-packing mode should not be construed as a compliment.
If you (or anyone else) too the time to follow the link I provided, it should provide some insight on how House/Senate procedure has been changed in the past, and perhaps note the similarities to the present situation.
And I repeat: the Dems have presided over four rule changes the past 30 years. But I don't doubt all four rule changes benefited both sides equally... :)
Instead of whining that "the Republicans did it, too!" (which cuts no cheese with me; I don't care who started this crap) why not address the central question? Which is: why does either party resort to this foolishness? Simple: it's a power play. The opposition doesn't have a legitimate argument against a given nominee, so they start this crap instead.
I have a very simple philosophy: if they are not suitable, hold a vote, and vote NO in committee. Then, vote NO during the full vote on the floor. Very simple.
The problem is that the Bush nominees aren't prima facie unsuitable; rather that they're "too conservative," and the Democrats (having managed to repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot during three consecutive national election cycles) just can't deal with being a minority party for the first time in nearly eighty years.
Lest anyone accuse me of being "partisan" (God forbid!), let me point out that not all Republicans are mindless neocon Neanderthals, and most are more concerned with jurisprudence than running roughshod over the Constitution. They (the moderates, AKA "normal people") are more than willing to listen to legitimate objections to nominees. But that's the problem, isn't it?