Posted on 09/07/2004 8:18:21 PM PDT by 11th_VA
IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE how the Senate could become more partisan than it is today. But that's what Democrats vow will happen if Republicans attempt a rare parliamentary maneuver to break the stalemate over President Bush's judicial nominees.
With 10 nominations now blocked by filibuster, many GOP senators say it's time to use the "nuclear option"--or, as they prefer to call it, the "constitutional option." The leading advocate of this strategy is Mississippi senator Trent Lott. He would have Republicans move before the election, ideally in September. "At least 45 of the 51 GOP senators would say, 'Let's go for it,'" Lott insists.
"It" might work something like this. Republicans would request a ruling from the Senate chair that the cloture rule--requiring 60 votes to end debate--is unconstitutional as applied to judicial confirmations. This would mean the Democratic minority could no longer prevent yea-or-nay votes on nominees they oppose. Once this ruling came down (very likely from Vice President Dick Cheney), Republicans would need a majority to uphold it, after which the Senate could move to up-or-down votes on Bush's nominees.
The principal barrier to this maneuver is Senate Rule XXII. It requires not only a three-fifths supermajority of all senators (60 votes) for cloture, but also a two-thirds supermajority of senators "present and voting" (67 votes if all are present) to change Senate rules. So a bare GOP majority couldn't possibly amend the chamber's filibuster rule. Or could it?
Back in 1975, a narrow majority of Senate Democrats did just that. They used ...
Sorry, the rest of this article is available only to subscribers.
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/rotunda-030707.html
The present Senate rules are no more sacrosanct than a statute. If the president signs a law, it remains in effect until the House and Senate repeal it and the president signs the repealing legislation. The prior law cannot provide that it remains law unless 67 percent of the senators approve the repeal. Similarly, a Senate rule remains in effect only until a majority of the Senate changes that rule. The prior rule cannot provide that it remain law unless 67 percent of the senators approve the repeal, but that is what the Senate rules now provide.
Precedent also supports this principle. In 1975 the senators changed the filibuster requirement from 67 votes to 60, after concluding that it only takes a simple majority to change the rules governing their proceedings. As Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-Mont.) said at the time: ''We cannot allow a minority'' of the senators ''to grab the Senate by the throat and hold it there.'' Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Byrd and Biden all agreed. Nearly a decade ago, Lloyd Cutler, the former White House counsel to Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, concluded that the Senate rule requiring a supermajority vote to change the rule is ''plainly unconstitutional.''
That was then. Now, a minority of senators once again claims that the Senate cannot change its rules to prevent this filibuster unless a supermajority agree. That is wrong. To paraphrase Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge, to vote without debate is unwise, but to debate without even being able to vote is ridiculous.
This article originally appeared in Chicago Sun-Times on July 7, 2003.
Long past time the GOP became "mushroom cloud-laying MFers," but don't bet on it.
LOTT ??? Leading Advocate ??? LOL !!!!
I say threaten to go nuclear after the election. Give them 48 hours to allow for an up or down vote then just change the rules and start filling judgeships.
I don't think it would be wise to do this before the election. Swing voters might assume this is unseemly and very heavy handed. However, a case for doing this after the election is definitely warranted. Hey, they have been making good people sit on their hands for too long. The BS has got to stop.
What the he** are they waiting for? The Senate to freeze over? Or our great nation to become a third rate, totally secularized, gulag for the left? We'll only fault you if you don't try Senators.
I agree, don't want to set the limit ti you know how many votes you have ...
The principal barrier is that Senator Frist does not have fifty votes to make it stick.
He may not have 48.
The Senator from Scotland declares that this measure is contrary to Scottish law.
I don't get the joke. I've read where Lott is a pretty good parlimentarian. No Dole by a ways but still good. Lott is a decent man, IMHO, and he got shafted.
Maybe the joke is that he was unable to move thngs forward himself when he was leader.
But we must remember the flip side... If the RATS ever get a majority in the Senate, this could be bad news indeed.
too many of them girlie man moderates to ever see this come
true...but we can dream, right?
Many republicans in the general public say it's "about time" you lost that yellow streak that goes down your backs. Stop being "girlie men".
What the he** are they waiting for? The Senate to freeze over?
ROFL Apparently so. One of these days the Republicans will show some spine. I hope it happens in my lifetime.
Never fear -- Lott will apologize abjectly next week for his hasty choice of words. It's a pattern with him.
Beside that argument, the point is very simply this: The Founders clearly intended the elected president to have the ability to appoint his choices to the Federal bench, with the oversight of a simple majority of the Senate. That is the plain meaning of the Constitution, and that is the meaning ratified by the States (and so authorized by the people). Any other "interpretation" is no different from an activist judge claiming to have found a justification for homosexual sodomy or the invalidation of the control of abortion by the states on the basis of "umbras" and "penumbras" issuing from some vague location in the Constitution. In other words, it's a rationalization for a naked power grab. Conservatives, libertarians, and constitutionalists should be horrified by it, and demand the Republican Senators go nuclear.
Interesting thing is the democrats are so self-centered and arrogant that they think the "nuclear option" is something that would be "done to them."
Truth is, the "nuclear" part of this option will be their reaction, and the timing couldn't be more perfect. Post conventions, just in time for the debates. Ruling from the chair that "majority" doesn't mean supermajority (pretty easy to put in bullet points to the public).
Kerry's campaing is already in a panic, and now the President starts getting his nominations confirmed, the Senate Domocrats (and Democrats in general) appear even more neutered, and the special interest groups start the chain reaction.
Thing is, once the chain reaction gets going there is no stopping it, at least in time for the elections. The special interest groups which have been pushing the (minority) Senate Democrats to block judicial nominations will go utterly ballistic, they won't have any other choice, their pawns in the Senate will no longer be able to deliver and Kerry is in no way a sure thing for their future plans. So they will have to go to the "public" to plead their case. Problem is the public, at least most of them, think the left fringe are whackos, so all the TV time the media will give them in an attempt to demonize something as simple as a majority vote as being proof of the President's heavy handidness will just show America the left's true colors.
And Kerry will no longer be able to control the message from his party, and his nomination and the Democrats in general will finally be seen as a cluster f#&^.
Checkmate.
The temporary outcome (if the ever get back into power)might be bad, but the Constitutional process would be held up as the standard, and that would be a good thing.
Reference bump. Thanks! Pass the ammo! '-)
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.