Frist Nixes Reid's Filibuster Compromise

[Zorra]

(Sorry if this was already posted)

Frist Nixes Reid's Filibuster Compromise
Wednesday May 18, 2005 3:46 PM
AP Photo WCAP104
By JESSE J. HOLLAND
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist on Wednesday rejected last-second offers from Democrats to avoid a showdown over whether they can use parliamentary delaying tactics to sabotage lifetime judgeships for people they vehemently oppose.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid tried to get Frist to skip over the nomination of Texas Judge Pricilla Owen, one of the most hotly contested of the Bush administration's judgeship appointments, and instead confirm consensus nominees to two other courts.
snip---
With the Owen nomination now pending, time is running out on senators who want to find a compromise and avoid a vote in the Senate to block Democrats from filibustering the White House's judicial nominees. If majority Republicans opt to change the rules to disallow filibusters of judicial nominees - the move labeled a ``nuclear option'' - parliamentary warfare between Democrats and Republicans could escalate and stall Bush's legislative agenda
snip----
Owen is praised as an ideal candidate by conservatives but criticized by liberals as being biased toward business interests and anti-abortion.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5014515,00.html

[Wright Patman]

1. I have not been following this

so this may sound like a stupid question.

Why can't the Democrats filibuster any vote on doing away with the filibuster? Since the 'Pukes don't have 60 votes, they cannot invoke cloture. So why would there even have to be a vote on this?

[rodeodance]

2. they will not need 60 votes if the filly goes in the trash

[MGKrebs]

4. Good question.

All I can think is that unlimited debate doesn't apply to changing the Senate rules?

[gratuitous]

8. It's kind of complicated

Ordinarily, any change in the Senate rules requires a 2/3 majority vote: that is, 67 of the 100 Senators would have to approve a change in the filibuster rules. The Senate has also conducted its business for over 200 years in compliance with the rulings of the Senate Parliamentarian, a person (who is not a Senator) appointed by the majority party to determine what rules the Senate will conduct its business under.

However, it is surmised that Frist might ignore the Parliamentarian's opinion that this rule change (abolishing the filibuster for consideration of judicial nominees) requires a 2/3 vote, and instead ask for a ruling from the President Pro Tem that this is not a rule change, but a new rule being promulgated. Adoption of that new rule would be by majority vote, not a 2/3 vote of the Senate.

The President Pro Tem is the Vice President of the United States, who would render his ruling on whether this would be a new rule or a rule change. Since the Senate sets its own rules without regard to any other branch of government and is not bound by any quaint notions of tradition, stare decisis or anything else, the ruling from the President Pro Tem would be unappealable, and the business of the Senate would be conducted in accordance with that ruling.

[mmonk]

33. They are going to break

Senate rules which requires 67 votes to change Senate rules by making a motion and ignoring procedure of going to the Senate Parliamentarian (who would call them out of order) and put forth a proposal for 51 majority to change the rule and then the filibuster vote on the same terms. This is a government take over pure and simple.

[skooooo]

3. I can't bear to watch all of this...

...this is such a CRUCIAL time. If the Democrats fail to defeat this, I think it's all over.....


What will happen?

[Zorra]

5. I suggest a nationwide general strike by all Democrats in support of our

senators.

A national filibuster.

[Cassius23]

16. I like your idea, and i think we should also...

I think we should get as many people as we can find to bus up to DC and have a talk with our President about this. I'm talking with some of my friends about it, and I'll be posting it as it's own thread as soon as I get more info/am allowed to post my own thread. :)

Cassius23

[Zorra]

18. Welcome to DU!

:hi:
Maybe Resident Bush will also explain the Downing St. Memo during this little "chat"?;-)

[Cassius23]

25. He's got a LOT of explaining to do...

about the memo, about the fact that good, well paying jobs are harder and harder to find(But the numbers are going up, you say? Yeah, if you want to work at Wal Mart or Target!), that he has lead the way in stripping out children of our economic and natural heritage as well as put great strain on the goodwill we have cultivated since the late 40's("We are all Americans", remember that?).

If you want to come on down(or up, depending on where you are), I'm trying to send e-mails to as many groups I can find to make this happen. And if you have any suggestions, that would be good to.
:)

[AlGore-08.com]

6. Here's how it should play out, from the Christian Science Monitor

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0518/p01s02-uspo.html

(snip)

If a compromise is not reached before Wednesday, the script for the nuclear option plays out something like this: The majority leader brings to the floor a contested nomination, most likely that of Texas judge Priscilla Owen and/or California judge Janice Rogers Brown. At some point, either before or during debate, he or a designee will raise a point of order that a simple majority, rather than the current 60-vote "supermajority," is needed to end a filibuster on the nomination.

Then, it gets murky. The point of order, effectively a rule change, will be decided by the chair, Vice President Dick Cheney, who also serves as Senate president. Mr. Cheney has already signaled he will support the rule change. (In an unusual leak, Senate Democrats say that the parliamentarian will not.) When Democrats appeal the ruling, the matter will be settled by majority vote, with the vice president breaking a tie.

At press time, both sides claimed they had the votes to support their side, but many senators were still not declaring a public position.

Republicans say this rule change will apply only to the president's judicial nominations, but Democrats and some outside experts say that an empowered majority may expand the change to other areas. "Once you go down that road, there will inevitably be a lot of pressure on the majority to expand the filibuster ban," says Sarah Binder, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

(More... )

[ticapnews]

22. "Once you go down that road..."

Or, put another way: Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny...

[dbt]

7. The avalanche has begun, hasn't it?

Perhaps there'll be enough pieces left for a frosty cold glass of lemming-ade.

:freak:

[Coastie for Truth]

9. Why did Little Rickie

block a straight "Up or Down Vote" for former Pittsburgh US Attorney and current District Judge Robert Cindrich's nomination to the Third Circuit.

Why did Little Rickie block a straight "Up or Down Vote" for former Pittsburgh Ass't US Attorney and Public Safety Director John Bingler. Bingler had the backing of his GOP Law School colleagues Dick Thornburgh and Orin Hatch.

Hypocrite.

[AndyTiedye]

12. Because He Can

[carnie_sf]

10. I knew he would

[MGKrebs]

11. From the WaPo:

"To get there, Republicans will have to evade a requirement that they have a two-thirds vote -- 67 of 100 senators -- to change the chamber's rules. Republicans will argue that they are attempting to set a precedent, not change the Senate rules, to disallow the use of filibusters as a delaying tactic on judicial nominations. And by doing so, they say, they are returning to a more traditional concept of majority rule."

"But Democrats contend that the Republicans are essentially breaking the rules to change the rules."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/17/AR2005051701425_pf.html

[PurityOfEssence]

13. "I just want my fair share, which is all of it."

That quote is from one of the Koch brothers, as reported by the great Greg Palast. These guys don't compromise; they want complete dominance until the point that they destroy any dissent to have to dominate anymore. They think like Elwood Blues: "we're on a mission from god."

[The Stranger]

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

If they go Nuclear, Shut it All Down.

Stick to your guns, let this play out, and they will withdraw the nomination.

[AndyTiedye]

15. We're Screwed. We Don't Have Enough Votes to Stop Them

That's pretty obvious from all the desperate attempts to compromise,
and the fact that Frist is pushing Owen first.

Now it's either bend over or get run over.

The Dems may choose to bend over now on ALL of the judges AND the
justices, AND Social Security, AND everything else, just so they can
maintain the theoretical ability to filibuster (even though they know
it will be taken away if they actually use it).

[AuntiBush]

17. Sen. Leahy mentioned Frist IS running for PREZ in 2008

Yup. We. Are. Screwed.

Delay cited "Democrats as stupid," at that rally of supporters this past weekend. Fristians want to degut us. We're reportedly godless. If our reps' have no voice, might as say goodbye do Democracy and the Democrat Party.

So we'll have something to remember: Thomas Jefferson was the first Democrat. Washington was listed as "none" because in reality they had no idea what they were til they "framed" our constitution.

I'd say our Constitution is being de-framed as we speak.

Fellow New Yorkers: Is the Statue of Liberty still standing?

[halobeam]

19. Its still standing today, but apparently, not for long.

[AuntiBush]

34. Does "up the creek without a paddle" ring true here?

Or the term, "backfire..."

[lancdem]

30. The compromise is being pushed by a group of Dems and Repukes

A number of Repukes are uneasy about this whole thing.

[grumpy old fart]

20. It's my understanding that if this goes through, Dems to put Senate on slo

motion. Much of what gets done in the senate is by "unanimous consent", meaning there is no need for a quorum and a vote. Dems will now make sure to have someone present at all times to suggest the absence of a quorum, which will require calling the Senators back to the chamber and having a vote. Frist will get his "up or down vote" in spades. As some wag put it, C-span will become the chamber music channel.

[gavodotcom]

29. And Republicans also get to vote against....

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/11486902.htm

...the Democratic agenda, and explain that to their electorate.

The result will be that a lot of Republicans in blue districts and states will have to run against their voting record on popular issues.

[meganmonkey]

21. According to Rawstory, there may be a chance to beat this...

More than a dozen Senators entered tense negotiations Tuesday evening over the details of a proposed compromise on judicial filibusters, convening a series of bipartisan, closed-door meetings to attempt to come to an agreement to prevent the nuclear option, Roll Call reports Wednesday.

Roll Call's Paul Kane indicates that the group says that enough Democratic and Republican senators are considering signing on, possibly averting a plan by Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) to quash minority vetoes of judicial nominees.

Excerpts follow:

The group held three separate meetings Tuesday afternoon and evening, breaking from Sen. John Warner’s (R-Va.) office shortly before 7 p.m. without an agreement, according to one aide. The group expects to meet again today.

Broadly, signatories of the centrist-sponsored memo would commit to opposing both the nuclear option and future filibusters, while allowing more than half of the already filibustered judicial nominees to be approved.



http://rawstory.com/aexternal/roll_call_filibuster_deal_518

[AndyTiedye]

23. Desperately Trying to Negotiate the Terms of Our Surrender

Here is where we cave in on judges, justices, Social Security, ANYTHING,
to try to keep Frist from going nuclear.

If he does, the Democrats will no longer be able to claim to have
any influence in government whatsoever.

[meganmonkey]

24. I certainly hope not!

I am really hoping we'll get a handful of repubs to halt this madness. In my heart I have faith that there are enough with some integrity, who aren't drowning in short-sighted partisanship, who won't let this happen. (please please please please - as you can tell, I am partly trying to convince myself. Forced Optimism, i call it. It helps me sleep at night ;) )

[Lone_Star_Dem]

28. I think the idea here is to keep the filibuster so they still have some

power over the supreme court justice choices.

[lancdem]

31. Social Security is separate

Dems are firm on that.

[AndyTiedye]

32. Who Knows What They Are Bargaining Away as Part of the "Deal"

[E-Z-B]

26. What the hay. This deserves to be shown again:

[Roland99]

27. Frist is just an asshole.

[mmonk]

35. Deserves discussion

so :kick: