Filibuster Falsehoods

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

If you haven’t already, take a gander at Media Matters for America’s list of filibuster falsehoods — falsehoods bandied about by filibuster opponents and blithely repeated by reporters who should know better. Here’s the no-frills list. More detail at the always useful MMA site.

1. Democrats’ filibuster of Bush nominees is “unprecedented”
2. Bush’s filibustered nominees have all been rated well-qualified by the ABA; blocking such highly rated nominees is unprecedented
3. Democratic obstructionism has led to far more judicial vacancies during Republican administrations than Democratic administrations
4. “Nuclear Option” is a Democratic term
5. Democrats oppose Bush nominees because of their faith, race, ethnicity, gender, stance on abortion, stance on parental notification …
6. Public opinion polling shows clear opposition to judicial filibusters, support for “nuclear option”
7. Filibustering judicial nominees is unconstitutional
8. Clinton’s appellate confirmation rate was far better than Bush’s rate
9. Sen. Byrd’s alterations to filibuster rules set precedent for “nuclear option”
10. Democrats have opposed “all” or “most” of Bush’s judicial nominees


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend