Frist: filibustering judges is OK as long as its not Democrats who're doing it

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Just a question: are there any honest politicians in the US?

They get out of politics.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why? I'm on record saying that the modern filibuster is way too powerful and easy to maintain. I want a return to the old style on force people to stand and talk. It'd be a much better use of Frist's power than the "nuclear option."

[mrmitchell]

Yeah,

I want to see someone break the 24 hour record.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Just a question: are there any honest politicians in the US?

maybe 10 or 20.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Whoha

maybe 10 or 20.

Maine's pols are all remarkably sane. Go Maine!

[DanS]

This whole issue is a lot to do about nothing. The dems cannot stop the GOP from doing this, and the expected negotiated settlement is favorable to the GOP, so it was ridiculous for the dems to challenge the GOP by stacking the filibusters of judiciary nominees. They must not have thought it through. They're in an incredibly weak position. Byrd knew this, so he has always wisely pushed negotiations to kill the issue as soon as possible.

Regardless, I don't think this has much importance to the broader public one way or another. Our democracy will not suffer no matter the conclusion to the matter.

Hopefully, the six-and-six group will come up with the expected compromise -- the dems will not filibuster any of Bush's nominees unless in extraordinary circumstances and the precedent regarding the minority's rights will not change. Then the Senate can get back to more important useless business.

[Dinner]

The Republicans are just arrogant and out of control. They get 95% of the nominees they want but still they are demanding 100% or nothing. Unemployment is up, GM & Ford had their bonds demoted to junk because of health care costs, medicine & insurance costs are forcing businesses into bankruptcy, and almost 4 years after 9/11 yet nothing has been done to ween our economy off of Arab oil. Instead we have Republicans holding special sessions of Congress to force religion on people in the Teri Shiavo case and we have Frist spending months talking about proceduraql changes in the Senate so he can grab more power.

There are real problems in America but Republicans haven't dealt with any of them. I'm sure next election they'll still be trying to blame Bill Clinton for the mess they've created.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by DanS
This whole issue is a lot to do about nothing. The dems cannot stop the GOP from doing this, and the expected negotiated settlement is favorable to the GOP, so it was ridiculous for the dems to challenge the GOP by stacking the filibusters of judiciary nominees. They must not have thought it through. They're in an incredibly weak position. Byrd knew this, so he has always wisely pushed negotiations to kill the issue as soon as possible.

Regardless, I don't think this has much importance to the broader public one way or another. Our democracy will not suffer no matter the conclusion to the matter.

Hopefully, the six-and-six group will come up with the expected compromise -- the dems will not filibuster any of Bush's nominees unless in extraordinary circumstances and the precedent regarding the minority's rights will not change. Then the Senate can get back to more important useless business.

The problem is Frist has been demanding that ALL of Bush's judges get confirmed. That's no compromise.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The Republicans are just arrogant and out of control. They get 95% of the nominees they want but still they are demanding 100% or nothing. Unemployment is up, GM & Ford had their bonds demoted to junk because of health care costs, medicine & insurance costs are forcing businesses into bankruptcy, and almost 4 years after 9/11 yet nothing has been done to ween our economy off of Arab oil. Instead we have Republicans holding special sessions of Congress to force religion on people in the Teri Shiavo case and we have Frist spending months talking about proceduraql changes in the Senate so he can grab more power.

There are real problems in America but Republicans haven't dealt with any of them. I'm sure next election they'll still be trying to blame Bill Clinton for the mess they've created.

Excellent, factual summary.

[Drake Tungsten]

The problem is Frist has been demanding that ALL of Bush's judges get confirmed. That's no compromise.

No, he's demanding that they all get a chance to be voted on.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

The problem is Frist has been demanding that ALL of Bush's judges get confirmed. That's no compromise.

No, he's demanding that they all get a chance to be voted on.

So why didn't he feel the same way for Clinton nominees?

[MrFun]

I'm going to go out on a limb to educate Drake . . . . . .



has to do something with political bias?

[Drake Tungsten]

Because the majority party (and his own) was killing the nominations?

I'm going to go out on a limb to educate Drake . . . . . .

You educate me...

[MrFun]

that's right

[Bosh]

And now a little bit of Godwin...

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05140/507782.stm

Frist starts countdown to final vote on nominee
Friday, May 20, 2005

By Maeve Reston, Post-Gazette National Bureau



WASHINGTON -- Rhetorical shots continued to fly yesterday as the Senate completed a second day of debate over Priscilla R. Owen, President Bush's controversial pick for the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The fight between Republicans and Democrats inflamed passions to the point where Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, the third ranking Republican, drew parallels between the "hubris" of Democrats and that of German dictator Adolf Hitler.

This morning, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist will take an official step to proceed toward a vote on Owen's nomination, starting the clock ticking toward a showdown over whether Democrats will retain their right to block judicial nominees with the filibuster.

Shortly after the Senate convenes this morning, Frist, R-Tenn., will file a cloture petition, which requires the approval of 60 of 100 senators, to end debate on Owen's nomination. Last session, Democrats blocked Owen and nine other appellate court nominees. He has renominated seven of them this year.

Under Senate rules that petition must "ripen" for two days while the Senate is in session -- today and Monday -- before a vote.

If five Democrats do not join with the Senate's 55 Republicans to give Frist the 60 votes he needs to proceed to an up-or-down vote for Owen, Frist plans to carry through his threat to lower the threshold needed to cut off judicial filibusters from 60 to 51. That vote -- known alternately as the 'nuclear' or 'constitutional' option -- is likely to occur on Tuesday.

As moderate senators from both sides continued to negotiate a potential deal that would give up or down votes for at least some of the seven previously blocked nominees and prevent a vote barring judicial filibusters, heated debate over minority rights continued into the night yesterday.

Republicans argued for votes on all judicial nominees and Democrats argued that Republicans were hellbent on doing away with the last check on their power.

Santorum and other Republicans charged that the Democrats' use of the filibuster to block judicial nominees had radically altered the traditions of the Senate and that their plan to bar filibusters of judicial nominees would merely restore the traditions of the last 200 years.

Santorum said the suggestion that Republicans were trying to break the rules was "remarkable hubris."

"The audacity of some members to stand up and say 'How dare you break this rule' -- it's the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying 'I'm in Paris, how dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city. It's mine.' This is no more the rule of the Senate than it was the rule of the Senate before not to filibuster. It was an understanding and agreement, and it has been abused."

In early March, Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W. Va., linked the threat by Republicans to use the majority to bar judicial filibusters to the Nazi's use of majority power to push through their agenda in the 1930s.

Santorum called on Byrd to retract his remarks at that time, stating that the words lessened "the credibility of the senator and the decorum of the Senate" and that he should ask for pardon. (yay! hypocrisy!)

Santorum issued his own clarification yesterday evening, stating that the reference to Hitler was "meant to dramatize the principle of an argument, not to characterize my Democratic colleagues."

"My point was that it is preposterous for someone to trample a well-established principle, and then accuse his opponents of acting unlawfully when they try to reestablish that principle," Santorum said. "Nevertheless, it was a mistake and I meant no offense." (how could anyone possibly interpret being compared to Hitler as being offensive?)

In the midst of their defense of minority rights yesterday, Democrats tried several times yesterday to shift the debate from Owen to previously blocked judicial nominees that they were willing to confirm -- including Thomas B. Griffin for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and three Michigan nominees to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

By forcing Republicans to once again reject their offer on the Senate floor, they tried to argue that Republicans are unbending in their desire to clear the way for all Republicans nominees in the future.

"The attempt to do away with the filibuster is nothing short of clearing the trees for the confirmation of an unacceptable nominee to the Supreme Court," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid.

If the negotiations of moderates are unsuccessful, Republicans are likely to call for the rule change as early as Tuesday afternoon.

Senior Frist aides say the Majority Leader plans to carry out the following scenario:

After the two-day ripening period ends on the cloture petition -- in this scenario on Tuesday -- senators must vote on the cloture motion one hour after the Senate comes into session for the day (as long as enough senators are present for a quorum).

The cloture vote determines whether Frist will call for the vote to bar judicial filibusters. Sixty of 100 senators must vote to end debate on Owen's nomination.

If the cloture vote fails, Frist would direct an inquiry known as a "point of order" to the Senate's presiding officer, who is likely to be Vice President Dick Cheney. In the inquiry, Frist would argue that after extensive debate on a nominee like Owen, filibusters of judicial nominees are out of order.

Cheney or the presiding officer would presumably rule that Democratic filibusters of nominees are indeed out of order and that only the votes of a simple majority of senators should be required to end debate on a judicial nominee.

The Democrats would object to the ruling by Cheney or the presiding officer.

Republicans would move to table -- or set aside -- the Democrat's objection. Tabling the objection would require a simple majority vote and Cheney could cast the tie-breaking vote.

If the Republicans succeed in tabling the motion, they will have set a new precedent. From that point forward only a simple majority vote will be needed to end debate on judicial nominees. The Senate would then move to a vote on Owen's nomination.