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

[SpencerH]

I've said it before, the constant use of the filibuster by the minority is bull****. This a democracy. Decisions requiring congressional approval should be made by vote not by rules of parlimentary procedure.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I've said it before, the constant use of the filibuster by the minority is bull****. This a democracy. Decisions requiring congressional approval should be made by vote not by rules of parlimentary procedure.

This is not a democracy. But other than that, would it matter if the minority of Senators represented the majority of constituents? Besides, what's with this "constant use" business. The Democrats have confirmed 205 conservative judges. They are threatening to fillibuster ten. If the Republicans wanted, they could easily find ten substitutes that the Democrats could let pass, even if they were concerned over ideology.

None of those polls give numbers by strength of feeling. I think they are of limited value in helping judge whether people would vote based upon this general opinion.

True. I agree with you, in that right now this isn't as broad a public debate as it could be. I mean, lets face it, most people don't pay attention to the Senate until election season anyways. However, I can assure you that this will come up during the next election. And it will be significant. And if we assume that most of the people paying attention right now are the partisans, we can go and make a reasonable guess what the moderates will think of the issue. On one hand, we have a centrist Democratic stance, and a 95% confirmation rating. On the other hand, we have Republicans who are making a power grab. I think that moderates will lean heavily towards the Democrats on this one, and while it may not be a voting criteria per se, I think that it will certainly influence the theme of the election.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I've said it before, the constant use of the filibuster by the minority is bull****. This a democracy. Decisions requiring congressional approval should be made by vote not by rules of parlimentary procedure.

As long as that applies to both parties, and isn't restricted to filibusters only, but all parliamentary procedures including holds and stalling in committee, I'm all for it.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Why should he do that when the Republicans have been even more obstructionist?

Because he's the head of the majority party in the Senate and, when it comes right down to it, has the Democrats by the balls?

If he had us by the balls, the nuclear option would be a done deal already. Just remember, what comes around goes around, and the Republicans shouldn't whine and ***** when retaliation gets shoved down their throats.

I'm all for Republican power grabs - the less excuses they have to blame their failures on Clinton and the Dems, the better, and the longer it will be until we see another Republican majority.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
If he had us by the balls, the nuclear option would be a done deal already. Just remember, what comes around goes around, and the Republicans shouldn't whine and ***** when retaliation gets shoved down their throats.

Precisely. Drake is clueless about who has who by the balls. It's James Dobson who has Frist by the balls. Frist is selling his soul for the nod of the Religious Right in 2008. If he had the support for it he claimed, this would have been a done deal weeks ago. Reid has all but taunted him to make his move. Meanwhile, Dobson has been making dire statements that further delay on Frist's part will be very bad for him, politically.

Right about now, I'm sure Frist is regretting the "nuclear option" even came up, just as he is regretting the GOP waltzing into the Schiavo case. The political damage being done to the Republicans lately is rather astonishing. DeLay, Schiavo, Social Security and now the Nuclear Option...

[DinoDoc]

This is the Democrats you are talking about, MtG. Why underestimate to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
This is the Democrats you are talking about, MtG. Why underestimate to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat?

If we're talking about the Democrats, shouldn't it be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory? And I figure we collectively have to learn sometime. Some small few of us have got it.

[DinoDoc]

Yeah. That was a typo on my part.

[Dinner]

http://www.moveonpac.org/savetherepublic/

Hit the play button on the screen in the upper left of the screen. Star Wars and Republican arrogance, I love it.

[Velociryx]

Bah....how typical of the left to DARE insinuate that Bush and his Conservative Republican posse are ANYTHING but noble champions of all that is good and right in the world.

Whiners.



-=Vel=-
(Good god I can't wait till the next elections....)

[Drake Tungsten]

If he had us by the balls, the nuclear option would be a done deal already. Just remember, what comes around goes around, and the Republicans shouldn't whine and ***** when retaliation gets shoved down their throats.

How does this refute my point? The Republicans hold all the cards right now; they can invoke the nuclear option at any time and **** the Democrats over but good. The only thing holding them back is the knowledge that they won't always be the party grasping the short and curlies. They don't want the eventual comeupance to be too bad...

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

If he had us by the balls, the nuclear option would be a done deal already. Just remember, what comes around goes around, and the Republicans shouldn't whine and ***** when retaliation gets shoved down their throats.

How does this refute my point? The Republicans hold all the cards right now; they can invoke the nuclear option at any time and **** the Democrats over but good. The only thing holding them back is the knowledge that they won't always be the party grasping the short and curlies. They don't want the eventual comeupance to be too bad...

What really refutes your point is that with Frist beholden to the religious right, a group that is getting angry at his delaying, if he had the votes, he would have already invoked the option. The problem are as many as eight moderate or traditional Republicans who, as you say, may be looking down the road, or (gasp) may not even think that the nuclear option is a good idea.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

If he had us by the balls, the nuclear option would be a done deal already. Just remember, what comes around goes around, and the Republicans shouldn't whine and ***** when retaliation gets shoved down their throats.

How does this refute my point? The Republicans hold all the cards right now; they can invoke the nuclear option at any time and **** the Democrats over but good.

I didn't know you had the private results of how the entire US Senate would vote on the issue.

The only thing holding them back is the knowledge that they won't always be the party grasping the short and curlies. They don't want the eventual comeupance to be too bad...

That, and not having votes from McCain, Nagel and a few other Republicans, and sure as hell not having any votes from Dems to make up for those.

[Boris Godunov]

The unofficial tallies I've seen have the Dems holding at least 50 votes, with another one or two very possible coming from Warner of VA and a few others. So notions that they are "****ed" are exaggerated.

If Frist had the votes, he would have done the deal rather than let Reid get away with taunting him. They're not holding back for any sort of noble purposes, as Frist could care less the damage he causes to the Republican Congressional caucus so long as he gets the RR behind him in 2008. That's why he's sweating bullets over Dobson's threats to him.

But if he hits the button and the attempt fails, he loses on all counts. He gets an embarrassing political defeat and the ire of the RR over not coralling his forces adequately.

Either way, his 2008 hopes--already dubious--are practically dead.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

As long as that applies to both parties, and isn't restricted to filibusters only, but all parliamentary procedures including holds and stalling in committee, I'm all for it.

Holding up a nomination in committee is a different animal (i.e. OK by me) so long as it requires a vote within the committee. I disagree with actions such as where committee chairs unilaterally block proceedings (as I believe Hatch did).