Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

2 GOP senators consider lawsuit to break filibuster
Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 11/14/2003 | Self

Posted on 11/14/2003 10:00:14 PM PST by WillRain

Two Senate Republicans are considering filing a lawsuit aimed at putting an end to delaying tactics by Democrats trying to block President Bush's nominations to the federal bench.

Freshman Sens. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said Wednesday they have their staffs as well as outside experts looking at whether such a suit -- filed, in essence, against the Senate itself -- would be feasible.

Their announcement comes in the midst of the debate over nominees Miguel Estrada, a Washington lawyer, and Priscilla Owen, a Texas Supreme Court justice. Democrats charge both are too conservative for the federal bench. The Estrada debate alone has dragged on for three months.

There are enough votes -- including that of Georgia's Democratic senator, Zell Miller -- to approve the nominations of Estrada and Owen. But Republicans in the 100-member Senate have not been able to marshal the 60 votes required to end debate on the nominations so they can be brought to a vote. The continued debate to block a vote is known as a filibuster.

Republicans have repeatedly protested that the filibuster, in effect, creates an unfair requirement that any nomination by the president be approved by a 60-vote margin.

"What we're seeing with respect to the judicial nominees is for the first time in the history of America, we're having a filibuster on our judicial nominees," Chambliss said Wednesday. "That's just wrong. That's not the way the Senate is supposed to operate."

The announcement by Chambliss and Graham comes just shy of two years after Bush made his judicial nominations.

"On this, the two-year anniversary of the presidential nominations, I think it's appropriate that we start ratcheting up the pressure," Chambliss said.

The lawsuit would challenge the constitutionality of the filibuster, Chambliss said. Details such as which court would hear the lawsuit would be decided by those reviewing whether it is possible, Chambliss said.

"We're not to the point of where we're going to discuss the details of what we might or might not do," Chambliss said. "Hopefully, this logjam will be resolved without us having to do that."

All through the debate, Senate Democrats have pointed out that they have helped approve the nominations of more than 90 percent of the Bush nominees. Some have suggested that if Estrada and Owen were liberals, Republicans would not have a problem with filibuster tactics. In fact, Lindsey Graham's predecessor, Republican Strom Thurmond -- then a Democrat -- set the filibuster record in 1957, speaking continuously for 24 hours and 18 minutes in a futile effort to block passage of a civil rights bill.

"It's somewhat hard to take them seriously," Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said Wednesday of his Republican colleagues. "They stopped something like 70 of President Clinton's nominees -- 70. We've stopped two of President Bush's. The thing I'm always impressed with is they can actually make the claims with a straight face."

In addition to Chambliss and Graham's lawsuit rumblings, there were two other prominent proposals to break the filibuster in recent weeks. Miller introduced a resolution that would limit how long debate over an issue could take place. And New York Democrat Charles Schumer proposed that the president appoint state boards, composed equally of Democrats and Republicans, to vote on the nominations.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said Wednesday that he will likely unveil a proposal that blends the Miller and Schumer plans.

When asked about the potential lawsuit, Frist said, "That is one [avenue] that I personally will not be pursuing. I will likely pursue trying to break the filibuster through persuasion and using the rules of the Senate . . . if need be."

The problem with modifying Senate rules to control filibusters is that filibusters are not exactly part of the Senate rules, said Betty Koed, assistant U.S. Senate historian.

"There's no real clear definition of what a filibuster is," she said. "It's more a Senate tradition than a rule."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: appointees; fillibuster; graham; judicialnominations; lawsuit; senate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last
I wouldn't give Chuckie's plan the effort it took to file it in the old circular file but the lawsuit idea works, I think.

I know some will point out that the courts hate to meddle in Senate internal affairs and that may well turn out to be the dicision, BUT a case can be made that since this affects the Executive branch too, it's no longer an "internal matter."

In any case, if it is timed right, it puts the stalling on the front pages if the SCOTUS agrees to at least hear it and I think that the Dems position won't play with the mushy middle who right now is just ignoring the thing.

Politically, having a court case on the way to the SC is a winner in an election year.

which might be the best way to get the Dems to back away.

After all, even THEY have enough sense to know that Teddy Kennedy calling Janice Rogers Brown a "neanderthal" on the evening news is a losing position.

Don't they? If not, so much the better for us.

1 posted on 11/14/2003 10:00:15 PM PST by WillRain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: WillRain
Oh but the Atlanta Urinal Constipation forgot one thing..... Democrat Zell Miller also said this evening on Scarborough Country that he would also be on board in the lawsuit.
2 posted on 11/14/2003 10:02:10 PM PST by rs79bm (Insert Democratic principles and ideals here: .............this space intentionally left blank.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WillRain
They're tilting at windmills.

SCOTUS won't touch this. Separation of powers. The Constitution gives the House & Senate the power to set thier own rules. If they don't like the rules, they can change them.
3 posted on 11/14/2003 10:02:48 PM PST by Keith in Iowa (Tag line produced using 100% post-consumer recycled ethernet packets,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WillRain
It would seem to me that Article 1 Section 5 2nd paragraph will force the Senate to solve their own problems.
4 posted on 11/14/2003 10:06:56 PM PST by Libertarianize the GOP (Ideas have consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Keith in Iowa
If Fox News can sue itself why not..?

What about one of those manamuss (sp) thingies .... which instructs a government dept to follow its own rules...in this case an up/down vote on the judges

5 posted on 11/14/2003 10:09:05 PM PST by spokeshave (Cancel the San Jose Merc and the one way truck to Nevada)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Keith in Iowa
I don't think the Senate can have unconstitutional rules just because it is in a separate branch of government. The executive is a separate and equal branch and it can't do unconstitutional things such as override due process and so forth. I'm sure there are very bright boys and girls researching this very topic right now somewhere, so we'll know definitively soon enough.

What I find fascinating is that, if the Supreme Court did rule on the merits, it could conceivably throw out the entire filibuster process as unconstitutionally vague and require the Senate to craft a new one. A longshot, but one can dream. Now THAT would be interesting.

6 posted on 11/14/2003 10:12:44 PM PST by KellyAdmirer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: spokeshave
A writ of mandamus. I don't know how that would work here. They are directed at an official who is not doing his job, I don't think it works against an entire legislative body that is following its own rules.
7 posted on 11/14/2003 10:14:19 PM PST by KellyAdmirer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Keith in Iowa
SCOTUS won't touch this.

I think they might. We are not dealing with rules in regard to legislation, which is within the perview of the Senate and house, but this deals with the constitutional power and authority of the President to nominate Justices. The Senate has a constitutional authority to advise and consent. The Supreme Court has the authority to interpret that clause. Does it mean that a minority of senators can hold up the consent? Or does it require that the Senate vote these nominations up or down without undue delay?

I think that since this filibuster rule has not been used in over 200 years of judicial nominating procedures, that the SCOTUS very well may find that the Senate has engaged in an unconstitutional infringement upon the President's constitutional power to make nominations that will either be rejected or consented to following a reasonable investigation into their qualifications.

I am optimistic on this one. I do not believe that the Senate has the right to ignore a nomination, but I believe that the Senate has a constitutional obligation to give advise and consent upon each and every judicial nominee. Failure to act upon a nomination is an unconstitutional infringment upon the power and authority of the Executive Branch. This is not a political question. This is a pure constitutional question. The Supreme Court has an obligation to interpret the advise and consent clause if it is brought before it.

8 posted on 11/14/2003 10:17:22 PM PST by P-Marlowe (Milquetoast Q. Whitebread is alive!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: KellyAdmirer
My understanding (and I'm definitely not a lawyer) is that it isn't filibustering in general that is in question but that filibusters related to the Senate's advise and consent function regarding Presidential nominations violate the Constitutionally-mandated 'majority vote' because they force a super-majority. If that is correct, then it would be a Constitutional issue rather than a matter of Senate rules.
9 posted on 11/14/2003 10:18:55 PM PST by kayak (The Vast, Right-Wing Conspiracy is truly Vast! [JohnHuang2])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
They're just looking at this now but if it goes to court, the Dems aren't going to like how it ends.
10 posted on 11/14/2003 10:20:30 PM PST by Hillarys Gate Cult (Proud member of the right-wing neanderthals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
You make an interesting case...but history is replete with examples of Representatives & Senators going to court only to get tossed on the basis of separation of powers. I would not get my hopes up. The only thing I see breaking this log-jam is the 'nuclear option' that's been suggested.
11 posted on 11/14/2003 10:24:18 PM PST by Keith in Iowa (Tag line produced using 100% post-consumer recycled ethernet packets,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kayak
Yes, I agree that is the issue. But if the general Senate rule allowing filibusters can be applied in unconstitutional fashions - and that is how the general filibuster rule is being used, to require the super-majority which is not contemplated by the Constitution - then the entire rule itself is flawed and must be re-written in order to only apply in constitionally benigh situations. Or at least that may be a possible argument here. Unconstitutionally vague and all that stuff. Just a possibility, however remote.
12 posted on 11/14/2003 10:31:43 PM PST by KellyAdmirer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Keith in Iowa
I don't think in this case that it is your standard run of the mill separation of powers issue. In this case both the it is not necessarily the executive "branch" vs. the legislative "branch" We are dealing with the explicit authority of the president to make nominations and the explicit DUTY of the Senate to advise and consent. Thus I believe that the constitution does not give the Senate the option of sitting on a nomination, but the Senate would be required to act upon that nomination. My guess is that if the SCOTUS takes the issue, the SCOTUS will interpret that clause to mean that the Senate cannot close its term without ruling on the nominations within that term -- since in essense there is a new Senate elected every 2 years. That would put an end to all the Borkings. That's for sure.

This is really a double edged sword. If the SCOTUS agrees with my interpretation, then a lame duck president could conceivably stack the courts by requesting that all the old dying judges that agree with his philosophy resign and allow the lame duck president to stack the courts with young ideolouges.

Nevertheless, I believe that this one has merit. I don't think it has been tried before only because nobody has ever used the filibuster technique to stop judicial nominations before. Now this issue is ripe for a SCOTUS review. Eventually neither side will like what happens.

13 posted on 11/14/2003 10:38:30 PM PST by P-Marlowe (Milquetoast Q. Whitebread is alive!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: KellyAdmirer
OK, I see what you're saying ..... it's a fine point of distinction but a significant one. I just hope that someone can do something to stop the donkeys.
14 posted on 11/14/2003 10:40:06 PM PST by kayak (The Vast, Right-Wing Conspiracy is truly Vast! [JohnHuang2])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: KellyAdmirer
Marbury vs Madison? The first major ruling established that the judiciary is the final arbitor of interpreting the Constitution. They could rule that the Constitution doesn't grant the Senate the power to hold a nominee to a supermajority.
15 posted on 11/14/2003 10:42:15 PM PST by byteback
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Keith in Iowa
I don't know. The SCOTUS need not directly address Senate procedures to simply haul them up for not fullfilling the Constitutional mandate.

they can, in effect, say "WE don't care if you do it by consulting the Psycic Hotline but your constitutionally appointed job is to decide - so do it!

Besides, as I mentioned, once there actions affect another branch - and here they affect both the exec branch (because they are presiential appoinments) in that they are interfereing with Bush carrying out his assigned duties and the Judicial branch (by leaving open court seats) they have stepped outside of "internal affairs"
16 posted on 11/14/2003 10:44:22 PM PST by WillRain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
The issues is the rules of the Senate - and thus far, the SCOTUS has not gone there - leaving rules squabbles to each legislative body. There is ample evidence in case law to support this.

More power to any Senator who can get a Federal court to first take the case, rule, and get it passes an Appleals court, then on to the SCOTUS if it comes to that.
17 posted on 11/14/2003 10:49:16 PM PST by Keith in Iowa (Tag line produced using 100% post-consumer recycled ethernet packets,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: WillRain
"They stopped something like 70 of President Clinton's nominees -- 70. We've stopped two of President Bush's. The thing I'm always impressed with is they can actually make the claims with a straight face."

The difference being that the Republicans had the majority when they stopped Clintons judges. Having the majority should mean something.

18 posted on 11/14/2003 10:55:37 PM PST by ProudGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Keith in Iowa
They're tilting at windmills. SCOTUS won't touch this. Separation of powers. The Constitution gives the House & Senate the power to set thier own rules. If they don't like the rules, they can change them.

Just because we have seperation of powers does not mean one branch of goverment can act unconstitutionally. The Constitution says the Senate will "advise and concent." The concent is by a simple majority vote not a super majority.

Congress in the past has passed laws that were struck down as unconstitutional, and the legislature does not have the authority to conduct itself outside of constitutional law. The judicary does have the authority to interven in this case.

19 posted on 11/14/2003 10:57:56 PM PST by cpdiii (RPH, Oil field Trash and proud of it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cpdiii
The issue is the rules of the Senate. The constitution gives the Huose & Senate the power to set and enforce their own rules. Thus far in history, courts have not stepped into House or Senate rule squabbles. Perhaps this will be the first time.
20 posted on 11/14/2003 11:04:42 PM PST by Keith in Iowa (Tag line produced using 100% post-consumer recycled ethernet packets,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: WillRain
This is really all Bush's fault. If he had any balls, he would recess appoint these judges. Then the tables would be turned and it would and the democrats would need 60 votes to end the debate to remove them. All the gutless Repubs would need to do is keep one person on the floor to object whenever the rats called for cloture.
21 posted on 11/14/2003 11:06:49 PM PST by RatSlayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RatSlayer
There's something to be said for that, though, as I understand it, Bush went on record long ago as disavowing that tactic.

I'm thinking that Bush ought to addressthe nation on TV and lay out his case, with specific, truthful (even if it's embarrasing) discussion of past precedent and the current situation, then introduce each of the nominees and their qualifications and their previous approvals if any to the American people.
The problem now is that the mushy middle who never pays attention sees only names in newsprint, if Bush puts Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owens and yes, even Miguel Estrada as cases in point before the American people it's going to be much harder for Teddy to get away with calling then "neanderthals"
22 posted on 11/14/2003 11:26:24 PM PST by WillRain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RatSlayer
Last night I saw some posts on another thread stating that persons accepting recess appointments do not receive pay unless and until they are actually confirmed later by the Senate. I believe they stated that the salary would then be paid retroactively for the full time served.

I do not know if this is true or not but those posting it seemed pretty sure of themselves. If that is the case, then it puts a whole different slant on the notion of recess appointments. How many people can afford to take months, if not years, out of their lives to serve in full-time positions with no pay? Why should they be forced into that position by the 'rats? And there is nothing stopping the 'rats from refusing to confirm them even after the appointments, thus assuring that any recess appointments would be serving on a charity basis.

If any attorneys or scholars would care to comment on this, I would welcome the information.

23 posted on 11/14/2003 11:33:13 PM PST by kayak (The Vast, Right-Wing Conspiracy is truly Vast! [JohnHuang2])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: WillRain
Teddy Kennedy calling Janice Rogers Brown a "neanderthal" on the evening news

Which evening news programs showed this?

24 posted on 11/14/2003 11:36:57 PM PST by Jeff Chandler (I'm a racist, you're a racist, we're all racists, hey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WillRain
WillRain said:

"...as I understand it, Bush went on record long ago as disavowing that tactic.

I'm thinking that Bush ought to address the nation on TV..."

Your correct. It's all part of the "new tone" (barf). IMO he's being so non-confrontational that he won't even do what you suggest. And unfortunately, it's turned him into doormat, which a minority of Rat senators can walk all over without any consequences.
25 posted on 11/14/2003 11:41:33 PM PST by RatSlayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: cpdiii
"Just because we have seperation of powers does not mean one branch of goverment can act unconstitutionally. "

You might want to think about that for a while....

Our Government has been acting Unconstitutionally for the last 60 years.

L

26 posted on 11/14/2003 11:43:24 PM PST by Lurker (Some people say you shouldn't kick a man when he's down. I say there's no better time to do it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: kayak
kayak said:

"Last night I saw some posts on another thread stating that persons accepting recess appointments do not receive pay unless and until they are actually confirmed later by the Senate. I believe they stated that the salary would then be paid retroactively for the full time served.
I do not know if this is true or not but those posting it seemed pretty sure of themselves. If that is the case, then it puts a whole different slant on the notion of recess appointments. "

I haven't heard this before and I would be surprised if its true. I remember one Clinton recess appointee that ended up serving multiple years (and I seriously doubt any Clintonite would have served w/o pay).

However, even if this is the case, I think Bush could find some far right people who are already financially set for life, that would serve w/o pay at the Circuit court level. Remember, there wouldn't be any qualifications needed, so they wouldn't have to be lawyers or judges or anything else. They could just be ex-CEOs or sports stars or anything else.
27 posted on 11/14/2003 11:58:58 PM PST by RatSlayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler
Kennedy Calls Bush Minority Nominees 'Neanderthals'

Kennedy's overtly racist language stunned even liberal CNN correspondent Jonathan Karl, who reported, "Strong words from Ted Kennedy suggesting that some of these nominees are Neanderthals."

Karl said Kennedy's harsh tone was "exactly what Republicans point to when they say it is the Democrats that have been the extremists on this."


28 posted on 11/14/2003 11:59:12 PM PST by kayak (The Vast, Right-Wing Conspiracy is truly Vast! [JohnHuang2])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Keith in Iowa
But can a the Senate confect a rule (by majority) which requires a 60% vote for a constitutionally-mandated advise and consent function, which function, pursuant to the Constitution, only requires a simple majority? I think not since I believe that Senate rules cannot trump the Constitution.
29 posted on 11/15/2003 1:48:59 AM PST by MarkT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MarkT
>>But can a the Senate confect a rule...

They can. The constitution says each house makes it's own rules. The constitution does say there are super majority requirements for certain things. The consitutution does not say that one house can not create a rule for a super majority for something not specified n the constitution.

Historically, the courts have not, up to now, messed in congressional rules squabbles. If a case can be made, and the courts act in this instance, more power to them - I don't think it's going to happen. The place do do it is in the Senate - and they have to change their rules.
30 posted on 11/15/2003 2:09:48 AM PST by Keith in Iowa (Tag line produced using 100% post-consumer recycled ethernet packets,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: RatSlayer
I think it was Bill Lann Lee (Sp.?) who received a Clinton recess appointment to the Justice Department and served there for at least a couple of years. I can't imagine that Lee would have accepted the job without pay.
31 posted on 11/15/2003 4:59:59 AM PST by gaspar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: gaspar
I think it was Bill Lann Lee (Sp.?) who received a Clinton recess appointment to the Justice Department and served there for at least a couple of years. I can't imagine that Lee would have accepted the job without pay.

The 'Rats probably got some union or moveon.org to pay him.

32 posted on 11/15/2003 5:11:01 AM PST by Mannaggia l'America
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Keith in Iowa
I respectfully disagree - I am from the South and the Southern states used to confect rules (laws) relating to Negroes, etc., done under the States rights concept (all powers not enumeratedspecifically to the Congress shall rest with either the States or the People...) - those rules/laws failed as well they should since they tried to pre-empt the Constituion.
33 posted on 11/15/2003 5:16:21 AM PST by MarkT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Keith in Iowa
I suppose the normal venue would be to change the rules in the senate. But if senators are breaking their own rules, changing the rules as previously understood, there must be a way to stop this.

As an American citizen, I am frustrated and angered and feel misrepresented through this failure of the United States Senate to advise and consent, to vote UP or DOWN on the nominees whose names come before the senate after judiciary committee reveiw.

34 posted on 11/15/2003 5:19:38 AM PST by Republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: WillRain
"Freshman Sens. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said Wednesday they have their staffs as well as outside experts looking at whether such a suit -- filed, in essence, against the Senate itself -- would be feasible."

Are you kidding me?

If O.J. Simpson can get away with cold-blooded murder on national television with 100 million people watching, don't you the the DemoRATS can find a good enough weasel (lawyer) to get them past a filibuster?

35 posted on 11/15/2003 5:22:31 AM PST by Happy2BMe (Nurture terrorism in a neighborhood near you - donate to your local community mosque.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WillRain
After all, even THEY have enough sense to know that Teddy Kennedy calling Janice Rogers Brown a "neanderthal" on the evening news is a losing position.

Are you telling me that Kennedy used the 'N-word' against Janice Rogers Brown? Where is the media outrage?????? I think that Kennedy needs to immediately apologize. Hmmm, I wonder if Kennedy considered Mary Jo Kopeckne a neanderthal too????

36 posted on 11/15/2003 5:24:36 AM PST by eeriegeno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

It's an interesting avenue for the Senators to pursue.

To those who say the SCOTUS won't take it, flat out, I say there are good arguments on both sides of that issue. The courts indeed get involved in separation of powers cases, but the threshold is not clear.

Purely hypothetical, but what if the Senate rules required unanimity for signing on to a treaty, in clear contravention of the Constitutional requirement for 2/3rds? That would effectively neutralize the Presidential power to make treaties. Similarly, in the case at hand. the President's power to approve Article III judges has been tipped.

Further, the Constitution provides for Senate oversight for Supreme Court nominees, and that the Congress can make laws prescribing the process for lower court judges (District and Circuit courts, in this case). Notice that the Constitution says the -mandatory- laws prescribing filling those lower offices may "... vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments." This clause intimates a limit on Senatorial power, and that for inferior Officers, the appointment power can be vested in the President alone, or in the courts -- but NOT interposing a higher barrier for appointment than the advise and consent of the Senate. It happens that the relevant statutes (for filling Disctict and Circuit Court vacancies) recite an advice and consent requirement, but the Constitution does not mandate this.

Clearly, if the Senate rules required unanimity in order to produce the advise and consent the Constitution requires for Supreme Court nominees, thereby permitting a single Senator to thwart the President in the exercise of his Constitutional power to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, we would have a Constitutional crisis. Would the SCOTUS take such a case? If yes, then we are talking about the threshold for taking a case. The Senate rules are now being used to effectively permit a minority of Senators to do precisely that, block Presidential appointments. The suit would be stronger if the President joined it, but I think the suit is ripe.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Democrats are perpetrating a Constitutional Crisis, and I sincerely hope they are called out on it.

As to whether or not the SCOTUS will take the case, I don't know. The point of this one-sided missive was merely to assert that the issue is legitimately arguable. It is not a cut and dried matter, and if the case is brought, the SCOTUS would be compelled to at least issue an opinion explaining why it is denying to become involved.

37 posted on 11/15/2003 5:41:29 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kayak
I saw some posts on another thread stating that persons accepting recess appointments do not receive pay unless and until they are actually confirmed later by the Senate.

Did any of the posts cite 5 USC 5503? That is the relevant statute. The purpose of a no-pay for recess appointees statute is to enforce the Sentate's power of advice and consent.

See also Recess Appointments of Federal Judges, which discusses your question.

38 posted on 11/15/2003 5:51:23 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Keith in Iowa
The issues is the rules of the Senate

I respectfully disagree.

In my humble opinion the issue is the patently unconstitutional usurpation of presidential power by a minority IN the senate and the resulting disenfranchisement of the American people.

39 posted on 11/15/2003 5:51:49 AM PST by Bigun (IRSsucks@getridof it.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: WillRain
There are at least 3 GOP Senators. Hatch is also a sponsor.
40 posted on 11/15/2003 5:55:33 AM PST by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Consort
BMP for more to read.....
41 posted on 11/15/2003 5:58:52 AM PST by Protect the Bill of Rights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
This is really a double edged sword. If the SCOTUS agrees with my interpretation, then a lame duck president could conceivably stack the courts by requesting that all the old dying judges that agree with his philosophy resign and allow the lame duck president to stack the courts with young ideolouges.

I'm not sure they would rule as you hypothesize, that all nominees must be addressed within that term. Even so, the Constitution permits the appointment of lower Officers without advice and consent, so the risk you describe is already Constitutionally present.

I agree with your point that the case would have merit. As a political matter, I think this is better settled without involving SCOTUS.

42 posted on 11/15/2003 6:00:04 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: WillRain
Let's see..... The purpose of filing Cloture is to end the debate. Yes? No? And the Democrats are filibustering by voting against invoking Cloture, thus prolonging the debate. Yes? No? And they are complaining because the debate is ongoing and won't end. Yes? No?
43 posted on 11/15/2003 6:06:10 AM PST by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Keith in Iowa
bttt
44 posted on 11/15/2003 6:20:28 AM PST by metesky ("Brethren, leave us go amongst them." Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton - Ward Bond- The Searchers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RatSlayer
"Your correct. It's all part of the "new tone" (barf). IMO he's being so non-confrontational that he won't even do what you suggest."

The problem with taking the 'high road' is that the rats shoot you from the gutter!
45 posted on 11/15/2003 6:43:03 AM PST by lawdude (Liberalism: A failure every time it is tried!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler
He said:

"We are not oblidged to confirm every neanderthal Bush nominates" or words to that effect. He did not specify but the only logical inference is that he was speaking of the judges they were blocking.

It has not - YET - appeared on any news show (AFAIK) but my point is that right now the lib-media are trying there best to keep it out of the public eye and if it went to the SCOTUS it would be harder to bury thus putting the Dims in the position of embarrising themselves.
46 posted on 11/15/2003 8:49:48 AM PST by WillRain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: KellyAdmirer
Just musing...

The cloture rule didn't come into effect until 1917, I believe..... Thus the Senate in effect was operating under the premise until that time it took 100% of the Senators present and voting to bring debate to an end... Or is that a wrong premise on my part?

Thus in 1917 the cloture rule attempted to establish a number less than 100% [2/3rds] to allow for a vote... It was further amended to bring the number down to 3/5ths of the Senators...

It appears to me that a rule would have to be adopted to reduce either that number to a majority on judicial nominees or that some preset time limit made applicable to the debate on all judicial nominees.... Otherwise if the cloture item is eliminated then we are back to the original setup before 1917 if you assume that unlimited debate is the basis to which the Senate operates.


47 posted on 11/15/2003 9:10:00 AM PST by deport (Monday is an awful way to spend 1/7th of your life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
Keith in Iowa is absolutely right in that it is a political question textually committed to another branch; ergo, the S.Ct. will likely go nowhere near this case, even if it WAS brought by a party with standing...which brings us to our next, and more major hurdle:

Senators have no standing to bring this suit. If it is to be brought by anyone, it would need to be brought by the judge who was denied his seat. And even then, there is still a question as to whether he has standing, since it's not clear that he has a "right" to the spot on the bench.

Lawsuits go nowhere, fellas.
48 posted on 11/15/2003 9:17:24 AM PST by Viva Le Dissention
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Viva Le Dissention
Would not the President also have standing as it is he that is being denied the up down vote on a nominee he has submitted?
49 posted on 11/15/2003 9:27:00 AM PST by deport (Monday is an awful way to spend 1/7th of your life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Viva Le Dissention
I resepctfully disagree with both you and Kieth in Iowa, that this is purely a political question.

Also, IMO, the person with the best standing is the President. The President has the power to nominate and appoint.

Finally, you'll note my statements that I don't know if the SCOTUS will take it (but there are arguments on both sides), and tht I think it best if this matter is settled without judicial involvment.

50 posted on 11/15/2003 12:01:45 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson