NYT: Republicans May Hasten Showdown on Judicial-Nomination Filibusters

[DeepModem Mom]

Republicans May Hasten Showdown on Judicial-Nomination Filibusters
By CARL HULSE

Published: April 13, 2005


WASHINGTON, April 12 - As the fight over the federal judiciary spread across Capitol Hill, Senate Republicans said Tuesday that they might quicken their push to prevent Democratic filibusters of judicial nominees.

Senior lawmakers and party officials said that while Republican leaders had been expected to put off any confrontation over Senate rules until next month at the earliest, they might now force a confrontation within the next two weeks....

***

Mr. Frist is under increasing pressure from some conservative Republicans to move ahead with a floor fight to change the rules so that filibusters, which require 60 votes to be cut off, could not be mounted against judicial nominations. It is unclear whether he has the votes to adopt the change, however, even by a bare majority.

Among those pushing for the change is Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, No. 3 in the Republican leadership.

"I am concerned that a partisan minority of Democrats are threatening to shut down the Senate if Republicans act to restore Senate tradition for simple majority votes" on nominations to the bench, Mr. Santorum said. "Their rhetoric is out of control and counterproductive."...


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/13/politics/13judges.html

[The Magistrate]

1. It Would Seem, Ma'am, The Senate Must Then Be Shut Down

This fight is going to have to be pressed to the last ditch and beyond....

[Goldeneye]

2. partisans......in politics.....imagine that.

Frist isn't partisan though...of course not. Just the obstructionist democrats are partisan.

[Kimber Scott]

3. Shut it down, then. They're not doing any good for anybody anyway. nt

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

4. An article in today's Wall Street Journal

said the Repubs may not have enough votes to do this. There are many such as John McCain and John Warner who understand that getting rid of the fillibuster may come back to bite them in this ass.

Try this link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3467788

[Pirate Smile]

5. Why the rush? Look here

"Most conservative and Republican organizations, however, have rallied around Frist's threat to ban judicial filibusters, especially with a possible Supreme Court vacancy on the horizon. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 80, is fighting thyroid cancer.

"End the judicial filibusters at the earliest possible moment and well before a Supreme Court vacancy should occur," was the message in a Tuesday letter to GOP senators from the American Conservative Union, American Values, Americans for Tax Reform, Free Congress Foundation, Focus on the Family, Eagle Forum and the Family Research Council."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47375-2005Apr12.html

GOP got their marching orders and they jumped.

They are going to try to get a Supreme Court Justice through with only a simply majority vote. :scared:

[ClarkUSA]

13. Hmmm...could Rehnquist be near death?

That could explain the rush.

[tritsofme]

20. The buzz is that he will step down in June

when court reccesses for summer.

[DesEtoiles]

6. Cheney will need to be there. What's his schedule?

[w4rma]

7. Bring it on. Please. (nt)

[Theduckno2]

8. I telephoned my Senators on Monday and urged them

to oppose change of the rules regarding the filibuster of judicial nominees. Consistency in the judiciary is a must for the courts to function properly. Otherwise plaintiffs will appeal just to find a sympathetic ruling from judge (or judges) outside the "mainstream". Simple majorities for confirmation would only compound whatever problems that currently exist. As far as tradition goes, I can think of many past "traditions" that I don't want to see return.

[Erika]

9. Bush is trying to silence the minority completely

and let the far right neo cons rule. Believe me the moderate republicans will suffer also. What comes to my mind, is my GOP co-worker who votes for the GOP always because they are good for small business. Her and her husband own one. But they also paid for two abortions for their druggie daughter. They didn't feel the child would have a decent chance. Just got to love the logic of those Republicans.

[Oilwellian]

10. A partisan minority of Democrats?

The last I read, all Democrats in the Senate are standing together on this issue. Mr. Santorum, your rhetoric is out of control and counterproductive.

[bluedeminredstate]

11. He's un-fricking-believable!!

"I am concerned that a partisan minority of Democrats are threatening to shut down the Senate if Republicans act to restore Senate tradition for simple majority votes" on nominations to the bench, Mr. Santorum said. "Their rhetoric is out of control and counterproductive."...


I can't believe he has the nerve to utter these words and not expect a lightening bolt to fry his ass!
:mad:

[KoKo]

12. Shut it down. They should have done it long ago. ...n/t

[Q3JR4]

14. Shut it down!

Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down!...

[ltfranklin]

15. I'd like to float a suggestion for a "compromise"

We're going to take a hit for our part of the showdown and inevitable fight if the Republicans do the nuclear option. To keep the American people on our side, we MUST provide a common-sense alternative and be willing to stick to it. I would like to suggest the following:

The Democrats in the Senate will filibuster the candidates for the Federal Judiciary that they feel are objectionable for whatever reason. They will withdraw the filibuster (or vote for cloture) for each judicial nominee IF the republican's will agree to 4 to 8 hours (time to be mutually decided) of FLOOR DEBATE on each candidate that is filibustered. After the debate, the filibuster will be withdrawn and a straight up-or-down vote will be taken. Since these are lifetime appointments, we should stress, allowing each senator to express their opinion on the candidate and attempt to persuade the other side to their way of thinking is NOT too much to ask. After all, if their arguments are so weak that they can't afford to allow the other side to make THEIR argument, then what does that say about their candidate?

Along with this, the possibility of the "Nuclear Option" should be taken OFF the table. To sweeten the deal, we should agree that, when WE'RE in power, we will not apply the "Nuclear Option".

This is a common-sense, reasonable compromise. I beleive that, one way or the other, they're going to try to force these candidates through, either by going Nuclear or by recess appointments. By putting this offer on the table, WE become the ones that are willing to compromise, and if they turn it down, THEY are the ones that are unwilling to accept ANY kind of argument with what THEY want.

I want to be one of the good guys...do they want to be the bad guys?

[Erika]

16. They get their way and you call it a compromise?

Bush only chooses extremists for appointments. If he chose to try to represent Americans he would choose moderates.

[Theduckno2]

17. I agree...

Tipping the judiciary out of the mainstream is a very bad idea and I too, think compromise is ill-advised. If the country is more conservative, then the Senate will naturally be more conservative and the mainstream (as well as the judiciary) moves to the right. If the rules are changed small fluctuations about the majority could greatly effect judicial bias. No compromise is not a good idea.

[ltfranklin]

18. Not quite

They may get their way...they're determined to get it anyway, and they'll get it, nuclear option or recess appointment. This way, we get 4 to 8 hours of floor debate, where every one of the Republicans have to put everything on record, we get to say our piece, and Every One of the bastards has to go on record that, even though they heard every argument we gave, they still voted for the candidate. Then, when one of the new Judges fuck up and reveal just how bad a decision it was to put them in, then we've got one more mistake they made that we can call them on. Or we'll bring up so much that they hoped would never get out of committee (and display it on C-SPAN) that somebody from the other side is going to have to vote no, just so they can face the next election without getting called on it.

And if the Judges are as bad as we think they are, they'll eventually do something so screwed up that they'll either have to resign or be impeachable, or be such a wingnut that they'll be constantly overturned by the supremes (who STILL have to at least pay lip service to the constitution).

So, why not come out as the ones who respect the constitution enough not to force a constitutional crisis, not to want to put a stop to the nations business unless we're forced to, the ones who are willing to compromise, as long as we don't have to compromise our principles and ethics.

Why not?

[Theduckno2]

19. I think our principles would be compromised;

In a country where you are entitled to a trial by jury of your peers (a group to which you belong), it seems wrong to allow the judiciary to move outside the mainstream (either to the right or left). Lifetime appointments are designed to remove most politics from the judicial process and your plan seems to put it back in, with constant review by Congress looking for an excuse to impeach. Judicial decisions should be reviewed through the appeal process, being judged by a group of their judicial peers. This is why the mainstream judiciary needs to be maintained, 51 per cent is not enough in my opinion. I am quite sympathetic to your wishes to be willing to compromise and not provoke a crisis. I would rather urge Sen. Frist to drop the nuclear option, to avoid the crisis.