McCain Urges Compromise Over Filibusters

[cal04]

A rizona Sen. John McCain privately urged fellow Republicans Tuesday to compromise with Democrats over President Bush's stalled judicial nominees, but Majority Leader Bill Frist countered by asking which of the controversial appeals court candidates should be jettisoned as part of a deal, according to officials familiar with the meeting. With a Senate showdown looming, possibly as early as next week, Democratic leader Harry Reid challenged Frist to allow GOP senators to ``follow their consciences'' when voting on a streamlined procedure for certain judicial nominations. ``

Senators should be bound by Senate loyalty rather than party loyalty on a question of this magnitude,'' he wrote. ``To me, it's common sense, and it has to do with principle, and that is that each of these nominees deserve an up or down vote on the floor of the United States Senate,'' Frist told reporters. ``Confirm them or reject them, vote yes or no, but allow them the courtesy of a vote.'' Republicans have threatened to use their majority to abolish judicial filibusters - a technique that establishes a 60-vote threshold and that Democrats used to block votes on 10 of Bush's first-term appeals court nominees. Bush has renominated seven of the 10, triggering a confrontation in the early months of a new Congress more securely in Republican hands.

Republican officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said McCain told fellow GOP senators at their closed-door weekly lunch he believes Democrats will agree to a yes or no vote on nearly all of the seven judicial candidates they blocked during Bush's first term. In addition, he described Reid as a man of his word and said Republicans should trust reassurances he's made about any future Supreme Court appointments. Democrats want their right to filibuster judicial appointees as part of any compromise.

McCain's remarks drew no response until Frist spoke near the end of the meeting. He said that as a matter of principle all nominees - not just most of them - deserve a vote. He said Reid has never offered a proposal to ensure votes for all seven stalled nominees, and rhetorically asked fellow Republicans which of them should be discarded, these officials added. Frist and McCain continued to discuss the issue as fellow Republicans filed out of the meeting. McCain is one of three Republicans who has publicly announced they will vote to retain the right to filibuster judicial nominees. The GOP can afford two more defections and still prevail on the issue.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4996910,00.html?gusrc=ticker-103704

[Arkana]

1. First of all, all these idjits HAVE been voted on--and they

were voted down. Crawl back into your hole, Mr. McCain--because no one wants to hear your namby-pamby "let's be friends" business.

[wtmusic]

2. The Republicans are standing on principle!

Down with the Filibuster!! (unless of course, it's a legislative filibuster, in which case we reserve the right to be fucking hypocrites and have our cake and eat it too)

[David Dunham]

3. We Should Save the Fillibuster for Supreme Court Nominees

If (as may be the case) it becomes clear that the Republicans have at least the 50 votes they need to carry out their nuclear option regarding Bush's federal circuit court nominees, the Senate Democrats may be better off abandoning the fillibuster of those nominees and saving it for Bush's potential Supreme Court nominees. I have been told "off record" by some one I know in White House counsel's office that they think there may be two US Supreme Court vacancies this year. I guess those seats would be the Rehnquist and O'Connor seats. If the Senate Democrats try to fillibuster Bush's circuit court nominees now, and lose the ability to fillibuster because the Republicans are able to execute their nuclear option, we will not have the opportunity to try to fillibuster a horrific Bush Supreme Court nominee. I think that there would be more public support for a Democratic fillibuster of a far-right Bush Supreme Court nominee than for a fillibuster of the right-wing circuit court nominees. It would also likely be easier for the public to identify with a Democratic fillibuster of a right-winger nominated to fill O'Connor's seat than a fillibuster directed against circuit court nominees. Therefore, it might be more difficult for the Republicans to get enough votes for their nuclear option if a real right-wing Supreme Court nominee is at stake. I admit that Bush's circuit court nominees at issue now are a pretty terrible bunch, but they may not be as bad as having a real right-winger fill O'Connor's seat if it becomes open.

[democracyindanger]

7. I disagree. If it comes down to one or the other, filibuster appeals court

nominees have a greater impact on law. Federal appeals courts do most of the decision making. The Supreme Court only handles, what, a dozen or so? cases a year. Most they opt not to hear. ALL of these cases must go through the appeals courts first.

[David Dunham]

10. US Supreme Court justices make the law and mean a lot more

For example, two more right-wingers on the Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade is history.

[democracyindanger]

12. Appeals courts make the law, too.

And to a much greater extent. And to revisit Roe V. Wade, somebody would have to file a case and go through an appeals court first.

[joldnir]

14. IMO, it must be saved for the supreme court.

While your point is true that the Supreme Court opts to hear so many cases a year, they do make a ruling upon each case that is brought before them. When they do not hear a case they let the lower court ruling stand, and that is the law of the land.

Why would the Supreme Court get involved with a case if they agree with the decision already reached by a lower court? Or that there has not been any errors in the trail?

IMO, we MUST NOT give up filibusters for any judicial nominee. By having just the supreme court nominees filibustered, the appeals court would easily over load the supremes by the vast volume of cases that would need to be reviewed. I say, let us keep the judicial process to where NO radical judges can set on any bench.

[democracyindanger]

15. Or it's so controversial

that the Supremes simply opt not to get involved. Refusing to hear a case means they don't have to review the legalities at all. They just trust the lower court.

[Warren Stupidity]

16. wrong

You just conceded the fillibuster on everything EXCEPT supremes, including legislation, and along the way you conceded that there is something wrong or difficult to explain about why the 200 year old rule ought to remain in place. After the fillibuster is eliminated for everything else, your case for keeping it in place just for SC nominees is massively weak.

For once, the Democratic Pary ought to stand together, speak with one voice, and DO THE RIGHT THING, even if we lose. Lets go out fighting, ok?

[Paul Dlugokencky]

4. Frist is going to push that button

http://www.cafepress.com/kickindemocrats

[The Stranger]

5. If they go Nuclear, Shut it All Down.

Reid offered a compromise that anyone to the left of a Nazi would accept. There used to be negotiations over nominees -- that is why Herr Frist's question seems so fucking stupid -- asking who should be discarded is part of the process.

Now there is no turning back. Now there is no stepping down.

If they go Nuclear, Shut it All Down.

[benburch]

6. FUCK YOU, McCain

No compromise, traitor.

[Greybnk48]

17. Amen!

After the hugs and kisses with * during the last campaign i have absolutely to respect for this man. I think his true character was revealed--he has none. Stamina, but no character.

[revree]

8. McCain is just stumping for 2008...and he was bagging Kerry

for doing the same thing. This guy wants to be President...which is why he is so visible suddenly...trying to be the diplomat. MY ASS.

[TheFarseer]

9. Yeah, and what will you vote for if they force a vote?

You'll say all the right things and then vote to kill minority rights.

[Andromeda]

11. Orrin Hatch on CNN...

called Republicans the "bipartisan majority" today in a Judy Woodruff interview. I've heard this expression quite a few times because the Bush administration is using this kind of language to make Democrats look like obstructionists.

These kind of tactics make my blood boil! :grr: What the Constitution says are checks and balances, the Republicans call obstructionist.

Is there no end to this hypocrisy?

[Zorra]

13. This is just a ploy for McCain to appear "moderate". He's not.

When push comes to shove he'll be right in lockstep with the rest of the fascist republican jackboots.

[Judi Lynn]

18. McCain Urges Compromise Over Filibusters

McCain Urges Compromise Over Filibusters

Wednesday May 11, 2005 2:16 AM


AP Photo WCAP102

By JESSE J. HOLLAND and DAVID ESPO

Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON (AP) - Arizona Sen. John McCain privately urged fellow Republicans Tuesday to compromise with Democrats over President Bush's stalled judicial nominees, but Majority Leader Bill Frist countered by asking which of the controversial appeals court candidates should be jettisoned as part of a deal, according to officials familiar with the meeting.

With a Senate showdown looming, possibly as early as next week, Democratic leader Harry Reid publicly challenged Frist to allow GOP senators to ``follow their consciences'' when voting on a streamlined procedure for certain judicial nominations. ``Senators should be bound by Senate loyalty rather than party loyalty on a question of this magnitude,'' he wrote.

Republican officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said McCain told fellow GOP senators at their closed-door weekly lunch he believes Democrats will agree to a yes or no vote on nearly all of the seven judicial candidates they blocked during Bush's first term. In addition, he described Reid as a man of his word and said Republicans should trust reassurances he's made about any future Supreme Court appointments. Democrats want their right to filibuster judicial appointees as part of any compromise.
(snip)

McCain is one of three Republicans who has publicly announced they will vote to retain the right to filibuster judicial nominees. The GOP can afford two more defections and still prevail on the issue.
(snip/...)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4996935,00.html

[Lochloosa]

19. Screw McCain....bring on the vote.

Which ever way it goes...the GOP loses. IMO the GOP has unzipped their fly...Delay, Schivo, Iraq and now this. Shut up and let's vote.