GOP Fails to Break Pickering Filibuster

Yahoo ^

[Coop]

Sorry, not a Pubbie. :-) Doesn't take a partisan to see where the problem is.

[double_down]

Does anyone here believe that if the dems were in the majority and the repubs were filibustering judicial nominees that the dems would go nuclear? The dems would have gone nuclear months ago and would have rammed through all of their judical nominees. The liberal press would have praised the dem's move to break the judical gridlock. Any effort made by the repubs to shut down the senate in the aftermath would result in a firestorm in the media.

If Frist has the support in his party to go nuclear (which is questionable), he should do it now. If not, the dems will do the same some day down the road when the roles are reversed. The repubs may be waiting to make this parlimentary move near the 2004 elections to make the dems look like obstructionists closer to the elections. In any case, Frist will have to go nuclear to get any conservative appeals court nominee approved as well as any future SCOTUS nomiee.

[SoggyBottomBoy]

Nuke First, worry about the Fallout later

[bourbon]

Your point is well-taken, but it is really just an assumption.

I would also add that, based on my viewings of the recent Democratic debates, I would welcome practically anything which "energizes" (i.e. p!$$es off) the Democratic Party's base of die-hard leftist wackos. At this point, don't you think "energizing their base" just means that we're doing the right thing?

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

Same old,same old!This will just continue until there is a massive number of recess appointments.

[TheConservator]

The Senate itself has the power to invalidate its own rules on the grounds that they are being applied in a manner that violates the Constitution. Therefore, 51 senators can and should simply decide to hold an up or down vote to confirm one of the President's nominees, and did so (simply ignoring the Senate filibuster/cloture rules.

Frist would simply need to hold a press conference and announce something like the following:

"The Constitution obligates this Senate to provide advice and to consent with respect to the President's judicial nominees.

The Democrats, by refusing to permit a vote on Priscilla Owens, Charles Pickering, etc, are preventing the Senate from discharging its Constitutional obligation.

In particular, the Democrats are applying a Senate rule, which requires the votes of a 60 senator super-majority to permit the scheduling of a substantive vote, to an issue--judicial nominations--to which this rule was not intended to apply, and to which it has historically not been applied.

After serious consideration, I, as well as a majority of the members of this Senate, have determined that the minority's use of this rule in this fashion, because it is preventing this Senate from discharging an obligation specifically imposed on this body by the Constitution, is not constitutional.

Although I greatly respect the rules of this Senate, when the rules are applied in a manner which prevents this body from fulfilling its Constitutional obligations, then those Constitutional obligations must prevail.

Therefore, notwithstanding the Senate's rules, I have directed the Clerk of the Senate to schedule a vote on the nomination of Judge Pickering to occur at _______________. I have directed the Clerk of the Senate to schedule votes on the other nominees whose confirmations have been filibustered by the Democratic minority every 48 hours thereafter.

Assuming a majority of the members of the Senate vote at that time to confirm the nomination of Mr. Estrada, I will thereupon officially certify that the Senate has consented to the nomination of Judge Pickering, thereby permitting him to immediately assume his duties at the Circuit Court of Appeals.

I, and the majority of the other members of the Senate who support me in this action, have not lightly chosen to take this action. But the minority's misuse of the Senate Rules to achieve the clearly unconstitutional purpose of frustrating this body's duty to provide advise and consent with respect to the President's judicial nominees has left us with no other choice."

The Democrats are the great practitioners of the art of pure power politics. Let the Republicans give them a taste of their own medicine.

[NYC GOP Chick]

Senate Republicans on Thursday failed to break a Democratic filibuster

WHAT FILIBUSTER?! THERE IS NO DAMN FILIBUSTER, JUST A THREAT OF ONE! And it's working!

Unless and until the 'rats are forced to confront having to make Drunk Ted stand in the well of the Senate, reading from the Bahston phone book for 24+ hours while jonesing for a drink, or make Sheets stand there and shake away through morning, afternoon, night and the following morning, reading poetry about his dog, Billy, they will use the threat of a filibuster to stop Bush from getting just about anything done if it needs a cloture vote!

It's time for Frist to take off his skirt, put on a pair of pants and act like the Majority Leader. He needs to tell the junior GOP senators that they have to take turns sitting at the President Pro Temp's desk in the middle of the night while pretending to listen to the dulcet tones of Hitlery screeching while reading from the Communist Manifesto while shifting from fat leg to fat leg as she holds in the urge to pee.

Remember, you only need one 'rat to keep a *real* filibuster going, but many GOP senators to do their part (in shifts, if necessary).

After one of these blowhards has pontificated for 24+ hours and gives in to the urge to wizz (or have a waitress sandwich, if Kennedy and/or Dodd do filibusters), Frist needs to tell them: "OK, up next is Judge Pryor. We've got a dozen junior senators waiting to staff our end of things, which 'rat will stand there for a day? And then who'll talk for a day when we put up Priscilla Owens the next day? And Carolyn Kuhl the day after that?"

*That* is what's going to work, not trying to beg and wheedle and play upon their non-existent sense of decency. They're in it to win it, and we should be as well.

[NYC GOP Chick]

This is insane. Why couldn't the Republicans run the Senate when THEY were in the minority?

Well, they did manage to kill Hillarycare.

Actually, it was some of their fellow 'rats who did them in -- mostly Breaux and Moyni*hic*han.

[Reagan Renaissance]

Republicans whine instead of leading. Frist needs to call a press conference and notify the President, the rest of the Senate, and the members of the House that the next vote taken in the Senate will be on Bush's nominees. When any other vote on anything else concerning the US is taken will be up to the Democrats. Shut down the government. Nobody will even miss it. America will hum like a clock if the entire federal government didn't show up for work.

[freeangel]

They didn't fail to "break"it. They didn't even give it a half a$$-d try.

[upchuck]

Judicial Watch filed suit on Oct, 17 to declare the Senate Rules unconstitutional.

In other news.. the sun is scheduled to rise once again tomorrow morning.

[SuziQ]

They need to bring it up for a vote EVERY DAY until the Democrats get sick of it!

[John Galt's cousin]

To: sonsofliberty2000

I bet they could if they actually MADE the dems FILIBUSTER! But the GOP leadership doesn't have the cahones for that.


64 posted on 10/30/2003 1:31 PM EST by MattGarrett


PING

[BillyBoy]

>> Musgrove is quite conservative for a RAT. He is pro-life, pro-NRA, and anti-gay marriage... Heck, if Bush decided to appoint Musgrove as a federal judge, the RATS would filibuster him. <<

Yeah, yeah, so was Al Gore when he ran for Congress back in the 70s. Do you think Musgrove actually BELIEVES those stances? Hardly. It's just the default position every RAT in the rural south uses to get ELECTED. $100 says Musgrove would have a "change of heart" over those issues if he was ever nominated for FEDERAL office and had to pass the pro-abortion limus test of the 'RATs anyway. Just look at any RAT presidential nominee who "used" to be pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, etc.

[Clintonfatigued]

I heard the oddest thing: RINO-turned-'Rat Senator Jim Jeffords is supporting Charles Pickering. Is there a list of which Senators voted for and against the filibuster?

[CaptBlack]

This is insane. Why couldn't the Republicans run the Senate when THEY were in the minority? The Democrats have managed to run the Senate from both positions because they are united and committed to winning at all costs. The Republicans are just happy to have the bigger offices. Ugh.

This is exactly what I've been saying for months now. It makes no sense: How can the Democrats be capable of running the Senate in minority position too? If so, why couldn't the Republicans??

The typical "after [insert legislation/White House initiative/phase of moon/monthly visitor] passes, then Frist can get tough" placebo ain't working with me anymore.

[Clintonfatigued]

Thanks for the posting!

[Clintonfatigued]

interesting point

[andy58-in-nh]

The typical "after [insert legislation/White House initiative/phase of moon/monthly visitor] passes, then Frist can get tough" placebo ain't working with me anymore.

Agreed. It ain't working with me, neither, brother. The Republicans in the Seante best start acting like Senators, rather then as 51 potential entrants in the Gelding Stakes.