Biased L.A. Times Piece on Filibusters
I’m back in town and quickly browsing through the local rag before turning to some work. What should I see but this piece about “filibusters.” Funny thing: the piece reads just like an opinion piece from a brazen left-wing hack, who shades the truth and hides the parts he doesn’t like — yet it’s actually written by a deputy Opinion editor at the L.A. Times. (Insert your own jokes here.)
The piece cleverly frames the issue as whether we are going to keep “filibusters” rather than filibusters of judicial nominees — quite a different matter, since the Constitution contains specific provisions about approval of judicial nominees.
This part caught my eye:
Beneath all the huffing in Washington, many see a healthy dose of hypocrisy, or at least glaring memory lapses. Republicans have happily used the filibuster to block initiatives, including President Johnson’s nomination of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas to become chief justice in 1968.
Note to the author: you’re writing a clearly labeled opinion piece. You don’t have to use the time-worn trick of talking about what “many” think when you’re really talking about what you think. Just say: “I see a healthy dose of hypocrisy.” Try it; it’s liberating.
Hardly surprising that the “hypocrisy” you see is that of Republicans. Never mentioned is the hypocrisy of Senate Democrats, such as Pat Leahy, who once said:
I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would refuse to put an anonymous hold on any judge; that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate should do its duty.
“Many” see hypocrisy in that statement, too. But the “many” don’t work at the L.A. Times.
By the way, as I have pointed out before, the Fortas example is not on point. Even assuming that he really was filibustered — something his opponents denied doing in the four days they discussed his nomination — Fortas would likely have lost a floor vote. Bush’s nominees would not.
It all sounds like a mess of talking point for Democrats. Should I be surprised?
No, you don’t know me. I’ve lived in Fort Worth since 1985 and hardly know anyone!
I’ll admit to not being able to follow procedural issues very well — my eyes kinda glaze over when I hear “cloture” — so, while I have a decent enough understanding of what’s going on to satisfy my own standards for knowledge, I doubt I could have explained my thoughts adequately before this weekend.
But a comment at another blog put it very succinctly: Senators, you get to filibuster bills and other matters that orginate amongst yourselves, using your rules. You do not get to do it when the constitution requires you to “advise and consent” to presidential appointments. The constitution requires the Senate to “advise and consent”; it makes no allowances for a procedure to avoid that obligation.
Roofer (e32d09) — 4/10/2005 @ 3:37 pmRoofer,
Are you aware that I grew up in Fort Worth?
What part of town do you live in — and how did you find out about this blog??
Patterico (756436) — 4/10/2005 @ 4:57 pmThe fact that your bio says you are from Fort Worth was what led me to extend the greetings. I live in a little gated subdivision off of West Vickery, between Bryant Irvin and Southwest Boulevard. Arlington Heights, just off of Hulen and I-30, before that.
How’d I get here? Heck, I can’t recall who sent me first: Captain Ed, Hugh Hewitt, Instapundit, Power Line …. If you visit these sites regularly, and I do, several times a day, eventually you’ll run across a link to this site. I saw, I clicked, I arrived here.
Roofer (e32d09) — 4/10/2005 @ 6:37 pmLived in Wedgwood (S/W Fort Worth) from age 4 to 18. Cool. Keep visiting and tell your Fort Worth friends about the site!
Patterico (756436) — 4/10/2005 @ 6:52 pm“By the way, as I have pointed out before, the Fortas example is not on point.”
On the point of filibusters being unprecedented it is.
actus (f9abe0) — 4/10/2005 @ 7:40 pmAs further indication that left-liberals (L-Ls) only talk among themselves, neglecting or refusing to read conservative opinion, or to discuss issues with conservatives, is this old warhorse about filibustering Fortas.
Boman (c7298f) — 4/10/2005 @ 9:13 pmI have no idea how many times I have seen this argument shot down by conservative writers but it has to be in the dozens.
When will the L-Ls learn that there is a vast body of conservative thought that they need to peruse in order to be educated, unbiased and intelligent dispensers of opinion?
On the point of filibusters being unprecedented it is.
What’s your historical source for claiming Fortas was fillibustered, if in fact you are claiming that? Why would they have fillibustered someone who was likely to lose a floor vote? You fillibuster when you don’t have the votes.
Gerald Apge (bdfba2) — 4/11/2005 @ 7:21 amJust to compound the comedy – Andres Martinez, identified as editorial page editor of the LA Times, wrote a piece denouncing Dem hypocrisy on the filibuster.
However, I did not read it in the LA Times (and can’t find it there) – I saw it in a local New Jersey paper, and here it is in the New Hampshire Union Leader.
Tom Maguire (1d5378) — 4/11/2005 @ 8:26 amI’ll add to your points regarding Fortas. As I blogged about here, there has never been a filibuster to deny a seat on either the Supreme Court or on one of the Circuit Court of Appeals. The four-day filibuster of Fortas was done with him already on the Supreme Court.
Further, it was done to prevent his fast ascension to the Chief Justice position before some ethics investigations were completed. There was never a stated intent of preventing him from assuming that position on the basis of his judicial philosophy. And when it became clear that the ethics investigations would show that he had lied under oath, his nomination was withdrawn… and within a year he had resigned his Supreme Court seat.
But there has NEVER been a filibuster to deny someone a seat on a bench. That’s all groundbreaking obstructionism by the current Senate Democrats.
Gerry (ba8044) — 4/11/2005 @ 8:55 am“What’s your historical source for claiming Fortas was fillibustered, if in fact you are claiming that?”
This is not controversial.
actus (ebc508) — 4/11/2005 @ 10:13 amKausfiles.com has some interesting thoughts:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2116317/
The anti-Lynching bills of 1922, 1935, and 1938 would have passed and become law, bringing as the NAACP wanted, federal force to bear against lynching and mob violence and starting the Civil Rights movement decades earlier.
Food for thought.
Jim Rockford (e09923) — 4/11/2005 @ 4:23 pmThe notorious Smell A Times one of calafornias most far left news papers along with the Sacramento bee and San francisco chronicle examener and the west coasts own New York Times
night heron (8267b9) — 4/12/2005 @ 7:02 pm[…] Also, Patterico’s Pontifications criticizes an opinion piece by Drex Heikes in the LA Times. Heikes’ piece includes this quaint quote from former Senate Parliamentarian Floyd M. Riddick: “The rules of the Senate are perfect,” he once said. “And if they change every one of them, they will be perfect.” Patterico says the Heikes piece reads like one written by a “brazen left-wing hack, who shades the truth and hides the parts he doesn’t like.” You decide. 2 responses to ‘Bond and Graham on Filibusters’. Comments and pings are currently closed for ‘Bond and Graham on Filibusters’. […]
Confirm Them » Bond and Graham on Filibusters (b78190) — 6/21/2006 @ 5:45 pm