Posted on 04/14/2005 3:39:01 PM PDT by jagrmeister
The arithmetic is fairly straightforward. Frist says he needs 51 votes to change the filibuster rule, and there are 55 Republicans in the Senate. One of those votes can come from the vice president, who as president of the Senate can vote to break a tie. That means to win the fight, Frist may be able to change the rules if he loses five senators; Democrats can win if he loses six.
Two Republicans — John McCain of Arizona and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island — have said they will vote with the Democrats against the rules change. Four other senators have said they have concerns about changing the rules and are considering voting against it. They are Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, John W. Warner of Virginia and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. More are rumored to be privately opposed but fear voting against their leaders.
Seeking to win their support [over the fillibuster issue], Democratic leaders divided Republicans into what they called "responsible" and "radical" members of the GOP.
"Responsible Republicans in this country and in this Senate must listen to what's going on in our country," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada told reporters after the weekly Democratic luncheon.
--
Apparently McCain and Chaffee have already decided to be disloyal turncoats "Responsible Republicans", according to Harry Reid and will support Senate Democrats against the will of the majority. Well, I haven't been following the judges battle as closely as other bloggers, but Democrats have upped the "ante" by courting Republicans who want to be known by their enemies as "Responsible". If GOP Senators crossover, think what they are saying to all of us- their supporters- that we are effectively "radical", irresponsible, reckless. It is a serious matter for a GOP senator to do so; it would be highly disrespectful, disloyal, and wrong to so many who voted them into office.
--
MinorityRetort
http://www.MinorityRetort.com
"Cause Not All Minorities Think Alike"
Responsible Republicans are calling on other Responsible Republicans to break Reid.
Where's Zell stand?
if the pubbies had any balls, they'd demand that usa2day publish reid's doings, like they published delay's this week.
These are the sort of quislings that will eventually draw the curtain on Constitutional governance in America.
I wonder how many conservative Republican voters will feel like turning out next year if these judges are still sitting around twiddling their thumbs.
Here we go...it's old, but hits the point...
http://noble.cbnoble.com/index2.php?p=104
Zell Miller wants to dump the filibuster
Filed under: Politics— Chris @ 10:26 am
Zell Miller has an interesting post over a Free Republic in which he is proposing doing away with the 60 votes necessary to break a filibuster in the Senate. In his post, Senator Miller trots out all the usual arguments against allowing for filibusters. Every time I see these arguments, I keep having to remind myself that there is a reason for the filibuster.
Senator Miller points out correctly that only in the Senate can a 41 vote minority stop a 59 vote majority. And there is a legitimate reason for that.
The 60 votes needed for cloture were put in place to protect the minority. When our nation was founded and the Constitution was written, the Founding Fathers wanted to make sure that there was protection in place for the minority. There was a fear (well founded at the time) that a simple majority would allow the party in power to effectively outlaw the minorities. In the House, directly elected by the people, a simple majority rules. But the Senate, which originally was chosen by the State Legislatures, was supposed to be the more dignified and more deliberative body. I believe the concept of “advise and consent” went beyond just on nominations. I believe that it also extended to reigning in the sometimes extreme views of the rabble in the House. The Senate was supposed to help to weed out bad bills and to help neaten up the good ones before they were sent to the President for signing.
The Constitution is actually designed to set up a minimalist Federal government. The 60 votes for cloture was designed to give the minority a chance to stop unnecessary bills from being passed. It is also to give the minority the ability to demand a rewrite of a bill to make it more acceptable. The 60 vote majority is not needed to pass every bill or motion, just the less palatable or more controversial ones.
The biggest problem we have today is not the filibuster, but its unintended use by the opposition. The filibuster was not designed to be a tool of blatant partisanship. It was designed as a tool of ensuring our Congress stuck to the ideals of the Constitution. We don’t need to reform or eliminate the filibuster, we need to reform or eliminate the people who abuse it. You want things to change? Vote for candidates who will use the filibuster responsibly.
Any government system at all will work fine - if the only people in the government use their powers responsibly. We don't need judges, legislators, or presidents. We just need a king - if he is responsible. </sarcasm>
Oops, i forgot to delete the last paragraph. I was just trying to post the info on Zell's stance, not the writers commentary. my mistake!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.