i laugh
Posted on 07/21/2004 7:47:32 AM PDT by Redbob
Conservatives and members of the Senate Republican leadership say that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) is committed to using a controversial procedural tactic that would rewrite the chamber’s filibuster rule.
While Frist said he was actively considering changing the Senate rules several months ago, it now appears that the majority leader is on board with an effort by leading conservative senators to execute the tactic, which would prohibit lawmakers from filibustering judicial nominees.
The most logical time to change the rules would be this fall or at the beginning of the new Congress in January.
Senate Democratic leadership aides have warned that if Republicans stripped senators of the power to filibuster judges, it would lead to a freeze in bipartisan relations that they compare to a nuclear winter. They say that Democrats would bring the chamber to a standstill in retaliation, but Republican proponents note that Democrats have, for the most part, done so already.
The evolution of Frist’s position seems prompted by the realization that Democrats will continue to filibuster judicial nominees and by growing pressure from conservative groups.
Senate Republican Conference Chairman Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) said he agreed with conservatives that the Senate rules should be rewritten soon to invalidate filibusters of judicial nominees.
“We’re working on it,” Santorum said. “We need the votes to do it. September is the best time to do it. This is about the future, and it’s not about one president or another” being in charge next year.
Santorum said that Frist was on board to rewrite the rules. A spokesman for Frist could not be reached for comment.
Currently, Republican leaders do not have enough support within their own caucus to support a rules change issued from the chair with a simple majority.
“There are those in the Republican [conference] who would not do that. They think it violates the comity of the Senate,” said Richard Lessner, executive director of the American Conservative Union.
The push by prominent conservative activists and legal experts to strip the minority of the power to block judges gained new momentum yesterday when Republicans failed to stop a Democratic filibuster of William Myers, a nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
Republicans expect Democrats to filibuster two other nominees to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, David McKeague and Richard Griffin, both of whom lawmakers passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday.
About a month ago, a group of prominent conservatives including former Reagan Attorney General Edwin Meese, former Bush White House counsel C. Boyden Gray, Federalist Society legal expert Leonard Leo, Heritage Foundation scholar Todd Gaziano, and others met to discuss the plight of blocked judges.
Among other topics, the discussion focused on the need for Frist to change the Senate rules or pursue other procedural tactics that would end the Democratic filibuster of judges.
“We do want a commitment from the leadership to get it done,” said Gaziano, who declined to comment on the details of the discussion or reveal the other participants. “We want a commitment from [the leadership] that they’ll get results and not that they’ll just try, that they’ll actually get results in ending the filibuster.”
“We leave it to them to a certain extent if they commit to us that they’ll do it,” he said. “This is a test of leadership, a test of Frist’s leadership and others’ leadership. We want a promise that filibusters will be ended and not just that they’ll try or engage some debate or engage in some publicity stunt.”
Since Democrats launched a permanent filibuster against Miguel Estrada, whom Bush nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the first time a judicial nominee was subjected to a series of failed cloture votes, conservatives have discussed ways to eliminate such blocking tactics. Rewriting the Senate rules has been an option long under consideration.
But as Democrats have used a once unprecedented tactic repeatedly against Bush’s nominees — Myers is the seventh nominee to be filibustered — the support among conservatives for stripping the minority of the ability to filibuster has swelled.
“There’s a fair amount of unanimity from groups that care about the judiciary that there [must be] some kind of procedural change,” said Gaziano. Conservative activists echoed that assessment.
“There is that push, and I would say that Todd is correct in describing it as growing,” said Jeff Mazzella, the executive director of the Center for Individual Freedom, a group that fights for Senate confirmation of controversial nominees.
“It’s pretty clear that the Democrats are not going to back down on this strategy of filibustering judges.”
Frist could pursue the so-called constitutional or “nuclear” option. One variation of the tactic would entail asking the vice president or a member of the majority presiding over the chamber to issue a ruling from the chair invalidating filibusters of judicial nominees. Democrats would be certain to object to such a ruling, but their objection could be overruled by a majority vote.
Rulings of the chair have been used in the past to change the filibuster rule, most notably in 1977 when then-Vice President Walter Mondale (D) ruled out of order a post-cloture filibuster by Sens. James Abourezk (D-S.D.) and Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio).
Another tactic would be to extend the legislative day over the course of many calendar days, taking advantage of the rule that a lawmaker can only speak twice on the same subject during a legislative day. Such a tactic would exhaust the ability of Democrats to filibuster a nominee or group of nominees.
Mazzella said that Frist has made it clear to conservative groups that he will take action toward eliminating Democratic filibusters.
“He’s indicated that he wants to see the rules change happen,” said Mazzella, who added, “He has stated several times that he’s committed to ending filibusters [that] obstruct Senate confirmation” of judicial nominees.
Several conservatives noted that Frist would not necessarily have to change the rules to stop the Democratic filibuster. Instead, he could use the threat of drastic action to motivate Democrats to compromise on the contentious issue.
One possible compromise would be legislation sponsored by Frist and Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga.) that would lower the number the votes needed to cut off debate on a nominee with each successive cloture vote held for the nominee. Such a compromise would allow Democrats to register their opposition to a nominee but prevent 41 lawmakers from blocking an up-or-down vote on a nominee.
Frist proposed the compromise legislation last year as a regular rules change, one that would require 67 votes to approve if filibustered by the Democrats.
But Lessner noted that conditions for the constitutional or nuclear option might be better after Election Day, as many Republicans expect to pick up seats in the Senate.
“The Republicans likely to win in November are likely to be more conservative,” he said.
This will be enormously important in Bush's second term, when he will likely have the chance to appoint perhaps 3 Supreme Court justices as well as setting the course for the federal judiciary for decades to come.
I'll believe it when I see it. They do a lot of huffing and puffing on this but in the end back down.
Gee .. Nice threat from the Dems
BRING IT ON!!!
i laugh
Somebody take this moron out and horsewhip some sense into him.
Good then they can't re-up the AWB!!
It seems to me that the RINOs can and will stop any attempt by Frist to change the rules. Unless he has some power over the NE Pubbies I'm afraid this is all for naught.
I think the Dems will eventually change their stance on abortion, period.
Reminds you of the idiot Dems who left Texas to avoid "do your duty".
Unfortunately, that's not happening anytime soon.
Probably not during Bush's second term.
I know some politicains (RINOs) will jump ship, but the nation needs to see it. The battle lines need to be drawn or we will have another 4 years of Judicial blockage and arrested government.
Leadership needs to be bold or it is not leadership at all. These aren't fillibusters. This is a gentleman's agreement between the parties that has gone awry. Bring back the real fillibusters or our govenment is stymied.
Doggone right it does!
Going "nuclear"?
Nice.
Oh please. If that were the case we wouldn't be seeing massive spending increases.
Now is the time to use the nuke...
The Dems have already stopped anything of substance... what is there to lose? Nothing as far as I can tell.
OH HAPPY DAY!!!
To heck with it. Time to bring the VP in, suspend the rules and bring all nominations directly to the floor for an up/down vote.
Nothing too lose?
That's never stopped the 'Pubbies before!
It would be interesting to see what we could do with actual leadership in Congress.
I advocate de-electing any GOP candidate who held office under a Dimocratic majority - in Washington or here in Texas.
Anyone accustomed to being in the minority somehow retains that minority-loser mindset.
I recall reading that the NE Republican senators would be able to prevent the nuclear option from working.
And they might also find themselves chairing the subcommittee on postal route reforms...
I say go for .. what's the worse that can happen .. nothing gets passed?
That could turn out to be a good thing
Something's got to be done. The Democrats have filibustered something like 7 nominees, and now we've got a huge legal backlog.
LOL...sure. As if there's no cold war in the senate right now.
bttt
I can think of NOTHING better than for the ENTIRE Senate to come to a standstill.
I don't mean to be petty, but I am still waiting for some retribution.
bump
2009: Chief Justice Clinton
If the Senate and executive branch went Democratic,who would stop it?
Bad idea.
I have to agree with "They" in this instance. The Dims couldn't shut down the Senate any harder.
OTOH, that might actually make me appreciate the Dims. No man's purse is safe while Congress is in session. Bringing the Senate to a standstill might be a good thing.
Shalom.
"Another tactic would be to extend the legislative day over the course of many calendar days, taking advantage of the rule that a lawmaker can only speak twice on the same subject during a legislative day. Such a tactic would exhaust the ability of Democrats to filibuster a nominee or group of nominees."
This is a brilliant idea, one that might be easier to accomplish than even a chair ruling.
This would still let them filibuster, but for a VERY limited period of time, two literal days and then they could not speak on the topic again.
It seems to be a good balance to me!!! They have their say, but can't control the process.
Frist has been whining and threatening for a year and a half. Trace back even on FR and you will find articles from spring and summer of 2003 of him threatening the nuclear option. Then a few months ago that supposed compromise 'deal' was made with Daschle. Well, that effectively result in 1, count 1, judge getting confirmed.
Frist won't do anything. Neither will any of the whimpy Senate Republicans.
The Dems have already gone nuclear by filibustering in the first place. Time to reply in kind.
That could still be blocked by a simply majority.
Lemme get this straight: the Democrats are threatening to filibuster everyting if filibuster rules are changed due to their filibustering?
Principles mean more than politics.
Even if we lose the Senate and Kerry wins, his judges should be allowed a vote.
I pray that doesn't happen. The nex POTUS WILL be appointing MULTIPLE SCOTUS justices. It is not if, but when in their presidency.
In other words, Bush has got to win this thing.
We simply CANNOT AFFORD Kerry appointing 2 or 3 justices.
If Bush would appoint that number......and the next POTUS will almost assuredly get to do so.....FINALLY the SCOTUS would be conservative.
Now, they can't even get a committee hearing or get out of committee.
"Another tactic would be to extend the legislative day over the course of many calendar days, taking advantage of the rule that a lawmaker can only speak twice on the same subject during a legislative day. Such a tactic would exhaust the ability of Democrats to filibuster a nominee or group of nominees."
What happens if the Dums retake control of the White House and Senate? Will there be a clause in rule chage that reverts back to the current system in the event that happens? The fillibuster works both ways. I prefer recess appointments to the rule change.
There. Fixed that little spelling error :)
... what I was thinking too.
close that barn door... the horses got out.
Thank you!
(BTW, love yer tagline!)
"Frist has been whining and threatening for a year and a half."
As a buddy of mine likes to say, “ I hear a lot of clucking, but I still don’t see any eggs!”
That's right; we do need to hold their feet to the fire.
Or some body parts...
I KNOW the answer...
Call for cloture votes for judicial nominees TOMORROW or
FRIDAY, and force them to STAY IN SESSION until
the fillibuster ends.
Will there be enough dems in attendance to even sustain their fillibuster FRIDAY?
How many would care to skip the convention Monday to sustain their fillibuster?
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.