Salon: "L.A. Times blows kiss to Frist" ("Nuke It, Already" article)

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html

"L.A. Times blows kiss to Frist"

Republicans picked up an unusual ally in their battle over judicial nominees and plan to detonate the nuclear option to blow away filibusters. The usually reliably liberal editorial page of the Los Angeles Times today gives its hearty support to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to "nuke" the filibuster.

The paper doesn't think Bush's judicial nominees are worthy of appointment, but nonetheless strikes out on its contrarian way:

"We don't share these activists' enthusiasm for the White House judicial nominees triggering the current showdown. But we do believe that nominees are entitled to a vote on the floor of the Senate. The filibuster, an arcane if venerable parliamentary tactic that empowers a minority of 41 senators to block a vote, goes above and beyond those checks on majority power legitimately written into the Constitution."

The paper says that dismantling hundreds of years' worth of Senate precedent regarding judicial nominees "would be a great triumph for the American people."

-- Eric Boehlert

(12:12 EDT, May 18, 2005)



The L.A. Times article:

"Nuke It, Already"

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-filibuster18may18,0,31270.story

We usually like it when centrist senators like John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) try to galvanize the sensible center on behalf of some compromise, but we sincerely hope they fail in their attempt to preserve the Senate's filibuster. Count this page on the side of conservative social activists who are pushing Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to "nuke" the filibuster.

We don't share these activists' enthusiasm for the White House judicial nominees triggering the current showdown. But we do believe that nominees are entitled to a vote on the floor of the Senate. The filibuster, an arcane if venerable parliamentary tactic that empowers a minority of 41 senators to block a vote, goes above and beyond those checks on majority power legitimately written into the Constitution.

The filibuster is an inherently reactionary instrument most famously used to block civil rights legislation for a generation. Democratic senators themselves decried the filibuster not long ago when they were in the majority and President Clinton's judicial nominees were being blocked.

Frist is on the verge of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. He plans to bring the nomination of Priscilla R. Owen, a Texas Supreme Court justice, before the full Senate today. Democrats have blocked her nomination in the past, and Frist is now threatening to force a change in rules to prohibit filibusters of judicial nominees. That would be a great triumph for the American people. It would be an even greater triumph if the Senate were to destroy the filibuster altogether.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[spooked911]

3. welcome to DU!!!!!!!!

:party: :party: :party: :hi: :applause:

And, uh, we sure hope it's not over.

[mitchtv]

4. more likely

they'll lose a few subscribers

[Democat]

11. It's over, but not the "it" you think.

How are "we liberals" in the "democrat" party ever going to win now that the right wing LA Times has supported the right wingers who they usually support?

Next they will be kissing Arnold's ass, as they have been every day since he hinted he might run.

[SaveElmer]

2. Ignorant editorial...

I hope wrote this is never in the position where he has to entrust someone else to make an end-of-life decision for him, or that his daughter needs an abortion, or that he cares whether his kids are forced to pray to the Christian God in school, or can no longer protest the government without being labeled a terrorist-sympathizer. That is what is going to happen if this goes through.

We might as well go to a unicameral legislature. Without the filibuster we have two identical legislative branches...there will be no check on the majority whatsoever!

As is typical with Americans...they have to really feel the pain before they will recognize a problem...

WHen this comes back to bite them because of their apathy and ignorance they will be scrambling to move back, but it will be too late.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

6. Boehlert did not write the editorial.

He wrote the commentary in Salon.

[SaveElmer]

7. Ooops!!!

Thanks

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

8. No, Boehlert is the Salon guy, and he's slamming the L.A. Times...

The L.A. Times article is on their Editorial page, and the author is uncredited.

:toast:

[SaveElmer]

9. Thanks...I changed it nt

[jojo54]

10. Oh, anoyher Jeffy, huh? n/t

[pbartch]

5. It would be a great triumph for someone to destroy the LA times!

This article makes me FURIOUS.

I don't mean to destroy the building and needlessly kill people. I'm sorry I said this but this article is the worst piece of news I have read in weeks.