Santorum: Frist will go nuclear

[Rose Siding]

Sen. Rick Santorum (Pa.), the chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, has reassured conservative activist leaders that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) is committed to triggering the “nuclear option,” stripping Democrats of the power to filibuster judicial nominees.

Santorum met the leaders Tuesday to dispel growing anxiety among conservatives that Frist was wavering over what some Republicans call the “constitutional” or “Byrd” option — a procedural tactic that would disallow judicial filibusters by a ruling of the Senate chair and a ratifying majority vote.

Conservative alarm surged when the Republican leadership canceled a briefing of Senate staff and activists by Martin Gold, a former Frist aide and master of Senate parliamentary procedure who is advising Republicans on the issue. The cancellation of the special meeting, which was scheduled for the Easter recess, left some with the impression that Frist might be backing away in the face of Democrats’ threat to retaliate by shutting down the Senate.

Business interests on K Street are urging Frist to delay the tactic because it could imperil their legislative agenda, as The Hill reported this week.......

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/040705/santorum.html

[democrat in Tallahassee]

1. Do it, Do it. Do it. We take back the house and senate. Do it.

dumbasses

[tubbacheez]

6. Reminds me of...

"You can't win, Darth. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."

[zanne]

15. Will the public pay attention to this?

It's more damaging, but less exciting,visually, than when they walked out in the 90's.

[Alpharetta]

23. There's a good chance Dems will be portrayed as "obstructionist"

The Republicans will remind us how bad they came off during the budget stalemate in Clinton's term. They will liken filibusters to that sort of "obstructionist" behavior.

[burythehatchet]

28. that's simply a ridiculous notion

there is no perceived similarity between the two scenarios.

[Alpharetta]

36. Oh really?

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=filibuster+obstructionist&btnG=Search+News

I might not perceive it. You might not perceive it. But there's plenty of media out there willing to equate filibusters with obstructionist behavior.

[jdj]

it will certainly show them for the whores they are re: Terri Schiavo.

the majority of the public was against their interference, and this will be pretty transparent.

edit: actually this whole thing could backfire on repukes because they just gave the public a dose of the kinds of invasion of privacy that the judiciary prevents.

[Clark Bayh 2008]

127. We must keep the filibuster option for the next SC nominee

There is no point in blocking these other nominees. It's virtually certain that Bush will have to nominate someone before 11/06.

We need to keep the option of filibustering Scalia for Chief Justice. Otherwise we are looking for trouble that we don't need.

[barb162]

103. maybe a bit more than Iran Contra, which wasn't very much

[Emillereid]

25. I only hope you're right. Remember though that it is the repukes

who count the votes. Do we really have a snowball chance in hell if they control the election machinery. They have just taken over the secretary of state's office here in California and the gropenfuhrer is set to redistrict California -- so don't even count on CA going blue anymore! The first thing on everyone's agenda has got to be to take back the electoral process -- no other issue, even Iraq or Social Security, is more important. We need inititiatives all across the country to insure fair, verifiable, honest elections -- or we the people are cooked!

[For PaisAn]

97. I couldn't agree more

"The first thing on everyone's agenda has got to be to take back the electoral process -- no other issue, even Iraq or Social Security, is more important. We need inititiatives all across the country to insure fair, verifiable, honest elections -- or we the people are cooked!"

This needs to be first and foremost. If not, nothing else will matter.

[Toots]

133. I agree with you totally and we need to make a real big splash to capture

any Media attention to this urgent matter. I would recommend something spectacular enough to get all the National news and something deeply embedded in America's Psyche. My proposal would be a coordinated attack on certain Election Centers and take their machines and throw them in the bay. Maybe do it dressed as Indians reminiscent of the Boston Tea Party. If say six to twelve major centers were hit and someone happened to videotape them and send copies of the tapes to every major news outlet, who knows :shrug: Just talking about it will not work. Hell half the people here at DU don't really believe this a danger. We need America to really start thinking about it and maybe just maybe a question will linger. Hell it would even invoke the sixties in it's flamboyance. Just my $.02 worth. :silly:

[BattyDem]

69. We won't take back anything ...

They know they have the power to rig any election, which is why they're doing this: they know there will be no repercussions. They don't have to worry about getting re-elected because they control the vote. This is it ... once the "nuclear option" goes into effect, democracy is officially dead in this country. The Democrats should just go home because they will have absolutely no power in Washington. Their presense will simply maintain an illusion of democracy. We're f*cked! :scared: :grr:

[ClintonTyree]

77. Exactly....Go home

go into hiding like they did in Texas. This will FORCE the debate, the media will be FORCED to report on the issue, not ignore it as usual, people across the land will be FORCED to see how this bunch of thugs operate. :grr:

I suggest every Democrat in Congress take a vacation. If the Slugs want the entire government to themselves, LET THEM HAVE IT TO THEMSELVES! Not a Democrat in sight. SCREW 'EM! :nuke:

[BattyDem]

83. You're right - it will force a debate ...

I hope the Dems have the balls to do it!

[chomskysright]

93. EEEEEEHAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! ditto: take back congress!

[ixion]

2. Senate staff and activists

so, senate activism is okay, but 'judicial activism' is a scourge. Do I have that talking point correct? :crazy: :grr:

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. You do

[wicket]

12. judicial activism is ok if it installs an unelected chimp as president

n/t

[BOSSHOG]

4. Go Ahead Frist

Don't whine in 19 months when you are in the minority.

[Beetwasher]

5. If They Do This It Tells Me They Plan On Rigging All Elections From Here

on out, including Senate elections. I mean, I thought that was probably the plan anyway, but this is just further proof.

[redqueen]

8. Son of a BITCH!

:mad:

:grr:

:argh:

:banghead:

:nuke:

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

[Jo March]

13. That's exactly the plan, Beetwasher

If this goes forward, we can forget about election reform.

[Griffy]

17. they are planning that either way.. why play fair if no one complains..

This is why I insist we expose the fraud, not just try to fix it without admitting the past fraud! We wont get to fair elections till America sees the rigged '04 election. So... I think we may have to lose 1 more.. '06, withour own exit polls, and prove the fraud.. THEN we can get a fair system... So if you want to win '06 and impeach bush, EXPOSE THE FRAUD!

not to mention breaking down the propaganda machine!

[Sterling]

143. I am not lifting a finger for the party until that is addressed.

Not one dime until the fraud of the voting machines is addressed. Kerry blew it for me by not using his remaining funds to investigate and expose the fraud.

[Griffy]

146. I'm with you on that.. but I support those that stand up!

Like Boxer and Conyers.. and I think Kerry fumbled too.. but I still feel he's on our team, for the most part. The game goes on, and Kerry is still in.. so he can redeem himself if he brings bush down al-la iran-contra.... I have DVDs I burned with "Unprecedented", the story of the 2000 election.. I hand them out at gatherings to open minded people that have healthy sceptisism... it gets them started... and thinking!

[cybildisobedience]

18. I agree

They're acting as if they are untouchable because they are untouchable. All this "go ahead -- we win in '06" is wishful thinking. We can't capitalize on the justifiable outrage if we have to battle both the media and rigged voting machines. We can be as pissed off as we want, but we can't make it count.

[nodehopper]

41. what do you mean "from here"? They are old pros as this by now.

[Morose]

45. Yep, this is just a step in a bigger plan.

Don't think that the people willing to shred the constitution in order to eliminate minority opinion IN congress will stop there.

Anyone willing to shred the constitution and democracy in that way will just as quickly undermine fair and honest elections in order to win.

STOP THINKING THIS IS ABOUT DEMOCRACY FOR THEM! STOP THINKING THIS IS SOME POLITICAL GAME TO THEM!

THIS IS ABOUT POWER AND WEALTH AND DOING ANYTHING TO GAIN AND KEEP IT.

Nothing else matter to them. So don't judge their actions by our standards. We'll be fighting machine guns with sling shots if we do.

(reply to the idea...not to any poster)

[tavalon]

68. My thought exactly! n/t

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bearfan454]

116. They already said the 06 Senate will be filibuster proof. n/t

[Clark Bayh 2008]

128. Agreed.... so we must have the filibuster available for the next 18 months

AT ALL COSTS.
If the republicans get 60 senators this country deserves scalia as chief justice.

[bearfan454]

135. I'm with you on that one. n/t

[iamjoy]

94. They've Already Rigged Senate Elections

Chamblis vs. Cleland - Georgia 2002

[struggle4progress]

96. Bad bad news. Death throes of US democracy. Organize! eom

[NVMojo]

108. I tend to agree with that and I think that is why Reid and others are

fighting like bloody hell on this ...

[Roland99]

7. Go ahead, GOP, hang yourselves

The American public won't tolerate an authoritarian state.

[nodehopper]

43. sure it will as long as it's clad in a flimsy illusion of procedure

I mean, how many people will even understand what that means?

[kath]

63. Sadly, the American public will probably tolerate it as long as they have

their reality TV and shopping malls... :-(

[Cats Against Frist]

64. Sure it will, as long as it's Paula Abdul, clad in a flimsy

two-piece string bikini, eating a Quarter Pounder on the hood of a Chevy Tahoe.


*edited to correctly spell "pounder"

[tavalon]

71. Yeah

Like they haven't tolerated every step towards an authoritarian state. I hate to be the one to break this to you but most Americans don't give a fuck about any of this. Otherwise there would already have been revolt.

[saskatoon]

75. The American people wont tolerate?

Haven't you forgotten the majority of the people are stupid, unseeing, unaware,stupid, prone to beleive fairy tales, believe all the bs by Bush,Simply melt at his little cute smiles, only watch soap operas, think Jerry Falwell is a Really wonderful man and are stupid!

[Roland99]

125. Then why is his approval rating dropping and below 50%?

Remember, only 51% of those who voted did so for the Propagandist. That doesn't mean the majority of Americans support him. There are just too many that are too apathetic. Moves like this nuclear option, though, are raising the ire of people who normally sit on the sidelines.

[PA Democrat]

9. Does anyone know where the terminology "nuclear option" came from?

I mean, it's interesting that they use terminology that in ordinary terms would result in a disaster for all. It's a no-win choice. I think it speaks volumes about the very dangerous mindset of the Republican party. "Win" the judicial wars, destroy democracy.

[rkc3]

10. Exactly, you'd think they'd have come up with a better term for it.

I mean they did invent Clear Skies and No Child Left Behind - among other noteworthy legislattion.

[progressoid]

11. the term "Nuclear Option" speaks volumes

Even with the knowledge of this being a lose/lose situation they still think its a good idea.

[oxbow]

16. They call it the constitutional option

detractors call it the nuclear option, as in "nuclear family," as in less votes needed to ratify

[PA Democrat]

22. The funny thing is that for the first time it seems that the Republicans

have failed to frame the debate in THEIR terminology. The mainstream media has been very helpful to the Repubs in the past: tax 'relief', Iraq as part of the 'war on terror', Bush described as a 'popular' president even with approval ratings below 50%. But the only term I hear the MSM using on elimination the filibuster rule if the "nuclear option".

The Washington Times, of all people, even use the term "nuclear option" in their headlines.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050323-121608-8533r.htm

[rfranklin]

60. The Dems should label it "one-party rule" and compare it to...

various totalitarian regimes. That would frame it well for most Americans.

[Morose]

46. scorched earth in order to gain control.

Willingness to destroy everything in order to rule it.

Yeah I think the term is apt.

[kclown]

19. Nixon 1972

According to Safire, Nixon campaigned against McGovern's
downsizing plan for the military saying the conventional
forces would be so weak that he would be left with only
"the nuclear option".

[More Than A Feeling]

27. A rare framing victory for us, whether or not we were responsible for it

it should be built on nonetheless.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BrightKnight]

92. We need day after tomorrow nuclear fallout ads.

Paint the nuclear winter picture. Use stock footage of Russian cold war mobile nuclear missile launchers parading through Moscow in winter. Ask people if they really want to live in a one party state. Show footage of other one party states: Germany, Italy, Russia, Iran, Etc...

Ask people to imagine what a One Party America might be like and help them paint the picture. Discuss corporate pandering and corruption. How interested in investigating Enron do you thing the Bush administration would have been without an opposition party? Will they shake down your business like they did the Indian gambling businesses? Do you think that free speech will be more or less secure? It would not hurt to include a few hurricane and environment devostation shots.

The American people are NOT stupid. People are more that capable of understanding this. Stand up and fight. I don’t come here to read whiny Democratic defeatism.

We could probably get a big name like Spielberg to produce it with or without credit.

[ticapnews]

99. You mean one party rule...

that will keep the gays from marrying and bring about the Rapture that much faster?

If you listen really carefully, you'll hear tens of millions of wingnuts asking where they can sign up.

[LuminousX]

29. Trent Lott

I believe Trent Lott was the one who first used the term.

[northzax]

33. you may be right

I know that secretly, the repugs love the term, gets the base all fired up.l

[bling bling]

100. I agree. Repubs love powerful sounding words.

"Going nuclear" makes them sound (thus they feel) strong and soldier-esque.

[ClintonTyree]

78. Noo-ku-ler....it's pronounced....noo-ku-ler.

They all have to pronounce it like the bush baby so he doesn't look like the idiot that he is. :silly: So they ALL look like idiots......noo-ku-ler. :nuke:

[Democracy White]

141. True

LOL, had to laugh at your reply. I missed when Chimpy Boy pronounced it like that.

Dee

[Eric J in MN]

89. Senator Trent Lott used it.

http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/040305.htm#040705

Whose Nuclear Option?

Yesterday, ABC’s The Note said it’s “liberals” that “call it” the “nuclear option.”

How soon they forget.

Much like it was Republicans who coined the phrase “Social Security privatization,” it was Republicans who coined “nuclear option.”

The 4/7/03 New Republic reported:

Lott that he had a plan of his own that might allow Republicans to circumvent a filibuster ...

... Lott wouldn't give details but ominously warned that his plan would mean going "nuclear."

One month later, the W. Times gave the details (via Demagogue):

Republicans could immediately break the current filibusters against two of President Bush's judicial nominees with a rarely used parliamentary procedure that would confirm them through a simple majority vote, according to a plan under consideration by Senate Republicans.

The tactic would be so drastic in the usually congenial Senate that Republicans refer to it as their "nuclear option."

[harlinchi]

119. Good question, PA Democrat.

I've wondered about the level of havoc they actually are prepared to accept or even cause. I wonder particularly about these folk who use phrases and words to obscure, obfuscate and misinform.

I think on a different topic that the timing of events which, just when the world's oil supplies have become as costly and as unstable as they ever have been, appear to have caused US military forces to be placed in large numbers in the area of the world that contains much of the remaining supply is so suspicious as to force one to consider that this administration's "acceptable" level of havoc might be quite high indeed.

On the "every cloud has a silver lining" side of things, this "reassurance" by the senator should put to bed any thoughts he might have had about moderating his image in PA, at least from my point of view. An election is approaching and, consequently, Sen. Santorum recently mentioned that he was "rethinking" his position regarding the death penalty. Not that it had changed, just that it was being rethought. I suppose a poll might have informed him that his image needed softening and this might have seemed a good way. Speaking of "nuclear" options does little to further that aim.

[adigal]

14. Man-on-Dog Santorum wants to go nucleur

Do these guys have any idea how they have been looking to any American outside of their very committed base??? I see more and more editorials against republicans, I see more and more very angry letters to the editor, I hear more and more people disavowing the republicans' extremist agenda.

I kind of hope they do this; it WILL keep the greedy and destructive businesses from having their pork passed.

[David Dunham]

20. Unfortunately, the public will not care about this.

[jean]

21. Frist, moronic leader of the Senate (moonlighting as Dr Frist VD - Video

Diagnostician) is a fool. He's enabling a Dem takeover.

[PA Democrat]

24. LOL! Bill Frist V.D- video diagnostician

That is a good one.

[0007]

49. Hilarious!

[LynneSin]

26. Hey Ricky - we're going to go Nuclear in PA and oust you ass in 2006

And believe me, if it's Bob Casey Jr - you're heading back to your home state of Virginia!

Oh, and those sneaky boxes have NOT taken over the state of Pennsylvania. You can be rest assured that Rendell will NOT allow you to steal the election!

[DemBeans]

30. Republicans are paying the price

Note how Santorum has to placate the "conservative activist base" while Frist has to worry about the "bueiness interests on K Street".

No matter how indifferent the public is, the deal the Republicans made with the devil is just about to fall apart. We can sit back and enjoy watching them self-destruct by summer.

[Cats Against Frist]

66. Bingo

All "elected" republicans walk around with a NASCAR Jesus on one shoulder and a pale green George Washington on the other. I think the base will soon find out exactly how large their, uh, "nether-regions" have been stretched.

[mmonk]

31. Remember,

the rightwing will rule even if they are voted out if they go nuclear. This escapes some of you. I know I will have to go to a modern free decent country if they go through with it. It's either that or open rebellion to reestablish representative democracy.

[renaissanceguy]

37. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the country split over this.

After all, they are taking away our democracy. This would be the icing on the cake, the climax of this "culture war."


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/472476

[mmonk]

50. Maybe we all need to move

to one state if they are going to states rights. That way, we can have a modern society where everyone's rights are protected.

[tavalon]

74. Yeah

that would make it so much easier for them when they get around to solving the Democrat problem if we're all in one place.
:sarcasm:

[mmonk]

76. I thought they were solving it now

;-)

[tavalon]

106. I was comparing it to the Jewish "solution"

Which of course, ends the conversation. Mea Culpa.

[mmonk]

120. .....then maybe we should disperse.

[Hebegirl]

145. Self-Defense

And that is why I am very supportive of the Second Amendment.

[UCLA Dem]

32. I thought it was now called the "constitutional option"

If the Dems just bother to show up for this debate I don't see how we can loose.

[neverforget]

34. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I hope they do

it as it helps us frame the Republicans as powermad and arrogant for 2006. If they do this and they are defeated by the moderate Republicans in the Senate, you know how stupid they will look? If it passes, the moderates will be further alienated by their own party. I'm hoping this nuclear option and the Schiavo case causes the moderate Republicans to abandon the party. Todays Repub party has no room for moderates, only idealogues.

[slackmaster]

35. Let them

They'll regret it next time Democrats control both houses of Congress and the White House.

[Festivito]

38. Point of order.Will DeLay delay delayed DeLay delay? Objectioin! ... .

Roll call! Quorum.

[indepat]

39. Should Frist go nuclear, I would suggest all Democrats in Congress close

up their shops and go home for no longer would there be a minority voice. Just think where the Repukes will be relegated to once they no longer control a majority.

[LSparkle]

40. Great idea! REALLY turn their backs on the 'Thugs

Why show up for a game if you're not allowed to play? They could all go back to their home districts and hold town meetings about how they aren't allowed to participate in our democracy.

[Mist]

118. Are there any moderate Repugs or independents who would also walk? nt

[Stuckinthebush]

44. That's when discussions about seceeding will start

And it would be appropriate.

If the GOP wants a country that has no minority voice, then the minority has the duty to divorce itself from the majority.

[Morose]

47. I agree.

At the point where the GOP abandons even a pretense of checks and balances..we should stop supporting that illusion. Democrats showing up in order to be willing sacrificial lambs only deepens the betrayal.

Our congress people (If they actually give a shit about Democracy) need to begin holding their meetings in the streets and home towns and loudly declairing what's going on. But most of even our democratic politicians don't seem to be patriots or statesmen...just politicians and business. And as such, they don't seem willing to do radical things that might cost them any pain.

Where are our leaders?

[msmcghee]

42. Dems should shut it down right now . .

. . and say this is important enough to our nation's future and we feel strongly enough about this that nothing will get done in this Senate until we have assurance that the traditional rights of minority dissent are preserved and are not trampled by out-of-control ideologues playing partisan politics.

Follow that with a major ad campaign to educate the public as to what they are in the process of losing. If Dean is as good as I hope he is, those hard-hitting patriotic ads should have been produced already.

If we're going to fight this battle - let's decide when and where and do it on our terms - rather than playing defense all the time. Santorum's statement is enough justification to act. If we believe we are right we should do it now and show some courage.

[0007]

48. Electrify me Doctor Frist and make this a reality. PLEASE!

[crispini]

51. TODAY is CALL IN DAY. CALL NOW!

Call your Senators and tell them you don't support this. You can find the numbers at www.congress.org

[Pachamama]

52. Just Watch Santorum & Frist: Watch America go NUCLEAR on YOUR ASSES!

These little theocratic neo-cons are looking for a good ole fashioned whoop ass....:spank:
Let them "try to go for the nuclear option"....If they think the Schiavo Circus was a disaster to the Congress, President's and Politician's ratings, wait till they see what happens when they try this little trick of theirs....

They will see Americans go Nuclear on them....and they can kiss 2006 and 2008 goodbye.... :hi:

[paineinthearse]

53. "Senate dems will fight them every step of the way" - Harry Reid

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1710708

[Gloria]

62. Is Reid sure of Lieberman?>????????

eom

[ClintonTyree]

81. Is Lieberman even considered a Dem any more?

If he is, he shouldn't be. Lieberman, Biden et al had better watch their asses. The entire DLC better watch their asses. This IS NOT the Democratic Party of the last 4 years. Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way. There's a NEW Democratic Party in town, and there's no more Mr. Nice Guy. These horses' asses better smarten up, AND QUICK!

[tavalon]

102. Since when is Lieberman a Democrat? n/t

[kath]

65. Some will fight. But, like always, many will roll over like spineless

wimps.

[AnnInLa]

54. History of the term "nuclear option" and how it would exactly work:

Am reading from the Lone Star Iconoclast (Crawford, TX): In a letter to the editor, a reader quotes from the New Yorker (there's no link to the article in the New Yorker in that letter)

"Changing the Senate's rules on judicial filibustering was first addressed in 2003, during the successful Dem filibuster against Miguel Estrada, whom bush had nominated to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Ted Stevens, R-AK, was complaining in the cloakroom that the Dem tactic should simply be declared out of order, and soon enough, a group of repub aides began to talk about changing the rules. It was understood at once that such a change would be explosive; Senator Trent Lott, the former Majority Leader, came up with the nuclear option term."

Apparently, Senators spent part of their Christmas break reading the draft of a law review article by Martin B. Gold, an expert on Senate procedures, who served as an aide to Bill Frist after he became Majority Leader. The article is a step by step guide to changing the Senate rules.

"In an extended debate over a jucicial nominee a senator could raise a point of order that 'any further debate is dilatory and the not in order.' If the Presiding Officer of the Senate -- VP Cick Cheney -- sustained the point of order, he would set a new, binding Senate precedent allowing Senators to cut off debate. Dems could challenge the VP, but it takes only a majority vote to sustain a ruling by the Presiding Officer. The repubs, with their majority, could both cut off debate on a nominee and establish a precedent that would apply to all future judicial nominations. Henceforth, then filibusters on judges would be impossible."

[nonconformist]

55. Will this get the attention it deserves in the media?

Pipe dream, I know. But if it does, considering the climate... let's just say this is a good time for them to overplay their hand. Again.

What needs to be repeated over and over is the reason why they're not afraid to go nuclear considering they might not always be in control is because they don't plan on EVER losing control.

As with so much these days, how this goes forward and the political fallout it will carry is dependent on the media. Oh joy.

[earthside]

56. Delusional DUers

I am astounded by the folks who are hoping the radical Republicans go ahead and do this Senate judicial filibuster rule change.

If the radicals in the Senate succeed, there will be a whole bunch of very extreme, radical Christo-fascist nominees confirmed to the federal bench ... and that means the Republicans will purposefully do things to make sure Senate and U.S. Represntative elections in 2006 go to court.

You cannot win a rigged game. You cannot win a rigged game.

It is delusional to think that the Bush thugs will play by the rules in such a way that the Democrats can win the elections in 2006 or thereafter.

It is time for more drastic measures ... the Democrats in the U.S. Senate need to shut that institution down if the anti-fillibuster rule passes. The Democrats in the U.S. House need to join their Democratic Senate collegues in becomeing BOLD, PRINCIPLED obstructionists. And we will all need to support that movement.

[Zhade]

59. Yeah, it's like hoping Hitler packs the courts.

It's a further step to totalitarian rule, and people are acting like we still have legitimate elections that we can win by exploiting the fallout from a corrupt move like this.

WE. DON'T. HAVE. LEGITIMATE. ELECTIONS. ANYMORE!

[goodboy]

67. I agree with you...we have to fight this all the way....(nt)

[mmonk]

70. Some people think

everything will be alright if dems win the next election if there is one. Sorry, but a rightwing judiciary won't leave even if the repubs lose seats. The table will have been set. The judiciary will be a veto over progressive legislation and previous civil rights that have been set. Wake up.

[drduffy]

95. It is my dread that you are correct

There is a lot of niavete on this list. If the fristshits do this it will probably be the end of any America worth living in. And if the elections henceforth are rigged - as in the past, it may well mean dying in the streets.

I am very very sad and worried.






sds and ksu 1970

[barb162]

107. "...need to shut that institution down"

WHAT DO YOU MEAN...HOW?

By the way I agree with your analysis until the last paragraph. I have long said the Dems need to be obstructionist and be proud of it and expalin where they're coming form when they're doing it. Get indignant!

[jenn1977]

57. "Democrats’ threat to retaliate by shutting down the Senate"...

what does that mean exactly? anyone know?

[hobbit709]

58. how many does it take

to make a quorum?

[cosmicdot]

144. 51 according to this link

The number of Senators that must be present for the Senate to do business. The Constitution requires a majority of Senators (51) for a quorum. Often, fewer Senators are actually present on the floor, but the Senate presumes that a quorum is present unless the contrary is shown by a roll call vote or quorum call.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/quorum.htm

in case the Dems can persuade some Republicans to join them, can Cheney be called in if they have 50 present?

of course, if Diebold etc hadn't caused us to lose a seat in GA, a seat in MN in 2002 ... and, how seats in 2004? FL? where else? The Senate should be in the hand of the Democrats.

it's one crisis after another with these radicals ... from Newt's obstructionist shutting down the gov't to Clinton's impeachment to stealing 2000 to this crap

but, hell, we don't need no stinkn' quorum ... we don't need no stinkn' Robert Rules of Order ... and, hell, we'll hunt them Democrats down and force them to be present ... just like they tried to do with the Texas legislature not too long ago (remember that? the Dems went to Oklahoma, I think it was ... was the issue redistricting?)

[ticapnews]

73. Ever watch C-SPAN2?

Before every speech a Senator will say, "Request unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks." The president of the Senate always says, "Without objection, so ordered." This is procedural, since the speaker is only allowed a set amount of time. What it means is that the speaker can go back and make the speech as long as he wants in the Congressional Record. Technically he could just stand up and say, "Good morning" but enter a 15-page essay congratulating the local Little League team on winning a ball game or some such. There are literally hundreds of these little "unanimous consent" decrees throughout the day.

What the Democrats will do is object to every single instance where someone asks for unanimous consent. A 15-minute vote will be required every time someone objects. The Senate will come to a complete halt. The trouble with this is the GOP will paint the Dems as obstructionists, and people will be gullible enough to buy it. There are enough people in this country who, if George Bush announced that 2+2=5 would not only applaud the president for his visionary advanced theory in mathematics but would villify the liberal intellectual elite who erroneously taught generations of kids that 2+2=4.

This is a very bad situation and comes as a huge risk to both sides. Considering the Democrats' track record recently, I don't like the odds of us winning the ideological battle in the media.

[Democat]

114. You're wrong - there is no risk to Democrats at all, none!

If the Republicans decide that they can just ignore the Constitution and do whatever they want, then Democrats risk nothing by fighting. It wouldn't matter if every Democrat were voted out of office if Republicans will just change the rules, ignore the Constitution, and lie their way through.

What risk is there to Democrats? They could lose all of their seats and have no power? That's the posititon we will be in already if we allow Republicans to burn the Constitution and break laws.

There is no risk to Democrats if they fight this and no point to Democrats if they don't.

[qazplm]

115. here's a concern though..

fillibusters are procedural too, but they are looking to get rid of that, what's to stop them from making a similiar ploy/ruling to make the unanimous consent go by the wayside? Or to do away with a vote and simply allow the Majority Leader to grant what before required unanimous consent?

[JerseygirlCT]

121. Anyone old enough to remember when

Newt tried to shut things down over the budget? He got nailed for it.

I'm not so eager to see us in this position. It will be very easy -- what with their almost total control of the media -- to play us as sore-loser obstructionists not interested in helping the country move forward. We'll be smeared, completely. I think this plays into their desire to go "nuclear" (or nukular as the case may be). To some of them, it's probably seen as a win-win situation.

I still don't think the American people have a grip on what we stand for as opposed to what we stand against. I think we've got a lot of work to do getting that message out. (See control of the media, above). It's going to be hard, but it's so absolutely necessary. We need to be ahead of this P.R. curve here, and we need to keep screaming about what we DO want to do.

[Kber]

137. Maybe the Dems should try this tactic for about a week

before Frist puts the issue to a vote - just to give their "friends on the other side of the isle" a taste of what it's going to be like.

A kind of pre-empitive general strike.

[Rose Siding]

91. Reid sent Frist a letter outlining all the things available to them

...among them, any Senator can request that every bill, every bit of business must be read aloud into the record- I haven't seen the letter (read about it in The Hill) but there are TONS of parliamentary skids that the dems could put down.

It's so radical, that I'm not even sure the nuke option would get the repubs any of what they really want if they use it.

[Gloria]

61. Call Lieberman, who has "no opinion" on this matter according

to a story posted at DU in the last day or so.

NO OPINION......the last bit of checks and balances, and NO OPINION????

[mmonk]

72. He loves his job

more than anything including our future.

[engineer_scotty]

79. Judges improperly confirmed?

What if:

* The Senate does use the nuclear option
* A few judges (perhaps even a SC judge) get confirmed that would not have survived a Democratic filibuster
* Democrats return to power.

Could a Democratic administration then remove any judges so confirmed; on the grounds that their confirmation was invalid, and they weren't duly and properly confirmed by the Senate? I'd be extremely leery of such a thing... but if the other side wants to play dirty....

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[engineer_scotty]

84. Naah.

Many of the business interests don't mind these particular judges at all --the objection that many Democrats have to them is on social and not economic grounds; and K Street doesn't care about social issues other than exploiting them to win elections. However, if Senate business grinds to a halt, then the various pieces of legislation enacting various corporate welfare schemes might not get passed. This worries K street.

As others have stated, the alliance between big bizness and the religious right is not impenetratable. For the past several years; big business has ignored the theocratic tendencies of the RR (and the left-wing economics preached often in the Bible), and the RR has ignored the non-Christian aspects of big business and rampant capitalism, to defeat a common enemy (the axis between labor and the social left). Now that said enemy has been defeated (or so they think), the cracks in the dam are starting to appear. The RR has noticed that despite being in power for four years now--abortions are still being performed; gays are not being driven back into the closet (and are in fact marrying in some jurisdictions), and sex is rampant in the media. They now want their due. Big Business is starting to realize that the President is an idiot, and his policies (foreign and domestic) have not been particularly conducive to their needs either.

Both sides, naturally, think that Bush (and the rest of the Republican Party) owes re-election to them. (And both are right). To quote Bush in his speech after the election, both have acquired political capital; and now wish to spend it.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saigon68]

147. Adios

[ClintonTyree]

85. I don't understand what they're bitching about......

out of 229 Judges that smirk has nominated, 219 have been confirmed. Apparently they don't want any debate at all. They want complete control without any dissent.
Fine, give it to them. Every Democrat in Washington LEAVES Washington, returns to their district and shuts down the freaking government. Game over. When the Slugs realize that they can't forward their agenda AT ALL until the Dems come back, maybe they'll give up on this absurd attempt to circumvent the Constitution. Screw 'em. We shut down the damn government. If we never win another election in history, SO WHAT! They control it all any way. It's time to go for broke. Either this Democracy survives, or it perishes.
Roll the freaking dice and see where they land.

[Democat]

112. You're right - we have nothing to lose if they screw the Constitution!

If the Republicans decide that they can ignore the Constitution, then Democrats have nothing to lose by standing up and fighting for once. If every Democrat gets thrown out of office by voters, we'll be no worse off then we are now.

Sadly, if this is what it takes to make an elected Senate Democrat stand up and fight, we need to replace a lot of elected Democrats.

[Democat]

113. Double post.

Double post.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mark wayne]

90. If the media rolls over on this one

then they show themselves for the bought & payed for whores that they are.

[tavalon]

105. And this is different from what the media whores have done thusfar, how?

Welcome to DU mark wayne, BTW.

[tavalon]

104. Now there's something worth praying for

Santorum as the Republican nominee?! Snort! Even rigged elections couldn't make that one a reality. Alas, he will not be the nominee, the chimp's brother will be.

[ticapnews]

98. If the Democrats were to leave Washington to prevent a quorum...

it would be a disaster. First, from a PR standpoint it would be played in the media as Democrats deserting the country. You know the media aren't going to portray this equally or accurately.

Also, do not forget the measure Congress passed earlier this year. The "Doomsday" law that allows a handful of Congressmen/Senators to declare an emergency and suspend the need for a quorum. In the event of such an emergency, all members who are not in the Chamber when the emergency is declared are no longer members, and are to be replaced ASAP according to state law. Which means if, for example, Sens Boxer and Feinstein left DC and the Repugs declared an emergency (the business of the country MUST continue!) they would be stripped of their rank and the Gropenfuehrer would select their replacements. Who do you think Mitt Romney would pick to replace Kennedy and Kerry?

We should also remember that while the GOP is in lockstep on most issues, the Democrats are not (see: votes on bankruptcy law, Cabinet appointments) so it would be difficult to convince people like Lieberman, Biden and Nelson to actually leave. They seem to have no problem working with the GOP majority anyway.

If Frist goes ahead with this, the only option for our Senators is to start objecting at every opportunity and bring the process to a stop. Sure, it'd be a stretch for the GOP to invoke the Doomsday plan, but does anyone really want to tempt them? It would only make it easier for them to seize more power, without even going to the trouble of fixing elections...

[Melynn]

101. Bad times a-coming

The Rethugs are going to push their agenda through Congress no matter what. Now what if the America people get fed up the neo-thugs and can't remove them because of election fraud. You don't have to be rocket scientist to see what the only alternative is for getting rid of the Rethugs. But of course, the neo-thugs have most of the weapons and security personal at their disposal so things could get bad, very bad.

This might be a good time to get of the country. If you can.

[jmcon007]

109. knowing this administration.....a prediction..

And I believe they have already talked it over.
When Frist nukes and the Dems shut down the Senate, I believe the monkey will declare a national emergency and seek to suspend the Constitution, which will give him the dictatorial control he's been wanting.
I still believe the Dems need to shut everything down, if Frist plays asshole and goes nuclear, but I believe we need to try and stay one step ahead of Rove and Co. by suggesting publicly that the neonuts might do this. I call it a "pre-emptive strike". Catchy, isn't it?

[Lori Price CLG]

110. At that point, can we 'go revolution?'

Just curious.

Cheers,
Lori Price

[Democat]

111. Why wouldn't Democrats shut down the House as well?

We need to shut down the entire government, not just the Senate, if Frist tries to fuck over America.

[Strawman]

126. The majority doesn't need the minority in the House to do business

in the Senate Dems can still filibuster everything else and refuse to give unanimous consent for routine exceptions to Senate rules.

I'm not sure that I believe they will be sucessful obstructionists though, and if they are that will be what the Republicans run on in 2006. They know they can't win on the issues, so they'll run on obstructionism. The Dems have caved on so many other things (with a notable exception being Social Security), I don't know if Reid will be able to hold them together. It's hard to get Senators to toe the line like that.

[truthisfreedom]

117. i think they forgot one little thing. the public will perceive this as an

offensive attack. "going nuclear" means first strike. it's always been evil. they're going to brand themselves. paint themselves. forever.

[JerseygirlCT]

122. I'm really not so optimistic

they own the media, remember. They'll paint their actions as regretable, but necessary, in the face of continued Democratic obstructionism. They need to get the business of running the country done, and we just want to stand in the way.

I would not underestimate their spin game on this. It will be MASSIVE. And we've seen how easily the sheeple fall for it.

[mmonk]

123. Here's pretty much the scenario

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050408.html

[Guaranteed]

132. Ahhh...so it's not that they don't show up, but they effectively

shut down the Senate by consenting to no procedural waivers.

[mmonk]

124. Also,

who's corner is Nelson on?
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/04/07/senate_nuclear_option_inevitable_in_may.php

[holboz]

129. They do it at their own risk...

...considering the polls that have been released that shows the majority of US citizens do not think this country is on the right track. The repukes are becoming a party of arrogance and think themselves invincible.

It boggles my mind that these people have the wherewithall to call themselves conservatives when they seem hell-bent to dismantle the very foundations of our government. These are truly Orwellian times.

If the Democrats can't stage a comeback in 2006 based on this insanity then our future is truly bleak.

[bejammin075]

130. The revolution will NOT be televised!

I'm glad so many people here "get it".

1. The media will not cover this properly AT ALL. It will be ignored, or misrepresented.

2. The attitude that there will be repercussions for the Repubs if they succede with the Nuclear Option is not correct. If the Repubs succeed, then they succeed! Because of:

3. The elections ARE rigged. President, targeted Senate seats, and possibly targeted House seats? The GOP leadership can behave as if their actions don't matter to the voter...because their actions don't!

Don't hold your breath for election reform. James A. Baker III is co-chair of the "blue-ribbon" election reform commission (created secretly, by secret people!). The new & fake election reform group ACVR, with Gannon-like instant access to high level GOP, is taking the center stage (in place of the real reform groups). ACVR claims to be "non-partisan", yet they are high powered lawyers for the RNLA and key Bush/Cheney '04 re-election people. The ACVR report on Ohio 2004 COMPLETELY blames Democrats for vote-fraud! And doesn't mention a word about electronic voting issues! ACVR and the Baker commission are working together to fuck you out of your right to vote - please see this recommended diary from DKos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/31/115039/228
"Coordinated attack on your voting rights happening NOW!"

4. The Nuclear option is just one prong in a multi-pronged attack on the Judiciary. Check out this NYT article (may take registration?)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/08/politics/08judges.html?

The GOP wants to have:
-> -> Mass judicial impeachments <- <-
Punishment of "bad" judges by Congress slashing their budgets
Removing court jurisdiction for "certain issues"

The U.S.A is in deep shit. Don't count on the media. Keep your friends and family informed.

[Guaranteed]

131. How many Senators have to be present for a quorum? nt

[bejammin075]

134. That depends on the "Doomsday" law

If there isn't a quarum, and it's an "emergency" then there doesn't need to be a quarum. Perhaps just having the government shut down (i.e. Dems walking out) would be an emergency - how ironic!

Future headline & byline:
"Dems walk out, shut down congress.
Repubs claim emergency bills addressing the War on Terror need urgent passing, invoke 'Doomsday' clause to keep gov. functioning"

[engineer_scotty]

136. Quorum requirements

According to the US Constitution, 50% of the members present are required for a quorum to do business--so using that figure, the Democrats cannot deny a quorum by refusing to attend en masse. I don't know if any law or Senate rule increases this number or not.

[LynnTheDem]

138. Fine. Then bring the entire US govt to a total stand-still.

No problem.

Americans want an official dictatorship, then FINE. Give them an official dictatorship. And they better just STFU about it when they get it.

[AnneD]

139. On the nonpolitical threads I visit....

People don't care one whit. I liken it to an earthquake. Some feel the tremmours, some don't.
The preshock was the GWB election. The 911 attack was the quake. The after shocks have been: the Patriot Act, Iraq War, the deficit, the falling dollar, packing Congress to consolidate power(Tx redistricting), stealing the election, and now packing the court. Let me tell you folks, if it doesn't change by 06, and 08... the tsunami will hit. We are on a bad course.
When I speak to my non politically active friends, they think I am on the fringe. But frankly, I can't understand why they are not more concerned. I have been a student of history and am here to tell you, just cause it hasn't happened here doesn't mean it can't or won't (the one party states that were mentioned earlier come to mind). I feel that a majority of the public is in an consumer induced opiate fog. They need to be hit hard before they wake up.
Well, I don't intend to be here when the tsunami hits. I have fought so long and hard, I don't have the strength to ride it out. If I do have to leave the US, I will leave with a broken heart.

[mmonk]

140. Know how you feel.

Too bad people are so uninformed that disaster has to hit before they can see.

[mmonk]

142. .

[Theduckno2]

148. This one has got me fired up!

I just don't understand how the Repugs could be so stupid! If I remember my history, didn't FDR try to pack the Supreme Court and Congress set the size of the Supreme Court at nine. This was done to avoid having a Supreme Court that was just an instrument of one political party. Now the Repugs wish to extend this to the entire Federal Judiciary even with a minimum majority! The only explanation I can come up with is that the Repugs, as the party of business interests, are looking for short term political profits, not seeing the long term consequences. They should see the long term political interests as threatened by this nuclear action and strive to keep the judicial branch reasonably independent of shifting political winds.