Posted on 11/10/2004 3:36:32 PM PST by neverdem
Conservatives aim to stop filibusters on judges
WASHINGTON - The raging fight over the federal judiciary that has long divided the two parties has sparked a heated Republican tussle on Capitol Hill, as conservatives and moderates feud over how much power President Bush should have to advance a Supreme Court nominee.
Sen. Arlen Specter, the moderate Pennsylvania Republican in line to chair the Judiciary Committee, is under strong pressure from conservatives in his party to promise he would support a move to give Bush's nominees an up-or-down vote in the Senate by helping GOP leaders force a change in a nearly century-old rule to prevent a judge from being blocked by a filibuster.
It is highly unlikely that the change will occur, say senior aides on both sides, but an intensive push for it was awakened last week when Specter, a supporter of abortion rights, touched off a firestorm in his party's ranks by saying Bush would have trouble winning confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee who opposes abortion rights.
The issue has taken on greater urgency in recent days, after Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, 80, revealed that he had been diagnosed with thyroid cancer and delayed his return to the court, indicating that his illness is grave and his retirement could be imminent.
A promise to help alter long-standing Senate rules is part of the penance some Republican conservatives are demanding from Specter, whose comments were widely interpreted as a veiled warning to Bush against nominating staunch conservatives who oppose abortion rights.
The strong reaction - which has reverberated around the country, prompting a flood of phone calls to Capitol Hill and a "pray-in" yesterday to block Specter from the chairmanship - made it clear that conservatives see the judicial fight as a gauge of Bush's power in...
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
Moderate my ass. He is as liberal as the swimmer!
Here's an idea:
force and actual honest to goodness filibuster! Make them debate 24/7! What we have now isn't a filibuster, but an unconstitutional super-majority rule. The fault for this lies with the majority party that refuses to require actual filibusters.
If memory serves me correctly, the vote to break the filibusters on judges was only shy two votes. With the Republicans picking up four seats, all we need to court away is five Democrats. Joe Lieberman, that's one...
I believe that the rules were changed years ago to prevent those old fashioned filabusters...
Sounds more like a Super Minority.
Don't be too sure about that. It was easy for some moderate dems to support closure when they knew their vote wasn't decisive. Some of them even had tacit permission from Daschle & co. Now they actually have to choose between their party leadership and their convictions (or their constituents.) Plus, the new dem senate will skew more left than the current one, with moderates retiring or losing.
Stop Specter Ping!
Misinformation alert!
Irrespective of what the MSM would, in their ignorance or deceit, have you believe, filibustering judicial nominations has nothing to do with a "long-standing rule".
In the history of the Senate, judicial nominations have never been subject to a filibuster. By custom, they were always afforded and up-or-down vote. Instead, the judicial filibuster is a distortion of the rules initiated by Little Tommy Daschle (who can hardly be referred to as "long-standing").
The proposed alteration of the rules would merely be to codify what has been, you might say, a "long-standing custom".
Closure =cloture (sorry)
Forgive me if this is a stupid question-----It was my understanding that an "up or down" vote meant that the majority only need ONE MORE vote than the minority. 51-49
Since when did it AUTOMATICALLY become 60 vote min.
Some of the Democrats who voted to break the filibuster have been replaced by Republicans (e.g., John Breaux). So, David Vitter of Louisiana does not represent a "new" vote to break for cloture.
With so-called "moderate Democrats" virtually an extinct species in the Senate, it will now be tougher than ever to round up Democrats who might vote cloture.
The most likely would be the Democrat senators from "red states" who will be running for re-election in 2006.
Robert Byrd (WV) -- fat chance
Bill Nelson (FL)
Ben Nelson (NE)
Les Bingaman (NM)
Kent Conrad (ND)
After that, you'd have to lean on Joe Lieberman (CT) and Max Baucus (MT). It's hard to believe any other Democrat could be pressured into voting for cloture.
That's a maximum of 61 votes for cloture. Presuming that Frist can herd all the RINOs into playing ball, as well...
It's not going to be easy...
Since Little Tommy Daschle became Minority Leader.
He established a Democrat policy that they would filibuster every bill/nomination their caucus did not agree with.
I doubt they can be convinced to.
Republicans Snowe, 83, Collins 83, and Chafee 90 would be put in a very untenable position if their votes were needed to filibuster a pro-life judge.
If we don't end the filibuster the Dems will be able to use any nominations of judges who aren't 'pro-choice' as weapons against our 'moderates.
Agreed. Therefore, it is imperative that we "alter the rules", which requires only a majority vote, specifying that judicial nominations will receive an up-or-down vote and are not subject to filibuster.
That would take the heat off the RINOs...and make them more supportive in subsequent cloture votes on strictly legislative issues.
"force and actual honest to goodness filibuster! Make them debate 24/7! What we have now isn't a filibuster, but an unconstitutional super-majority rule. The fault for this lies with the majority party that refuses to require actual filibusters."
100% agreed! These "gentlemen's filibusters" are a disgrace to every single person who ever made an honest effort to make this country a good place.
It's all BS, make 'em talk or make 'em walk.
Now if they vote for cloture, unless enough Dems vote against it, the nominee will be confirmed.
Now that their vote will actually matter their 'pro-choice' voters will hold it against them if they vote for cloture.
It's no longer a meaningless vote, unless we change the cloture rule.
This from Wikipedia:
Unlike the United States House of Representatives there are no strict rules regarding the debate, and one strategy used by senators to kill a bill is to filibuster which is to continuously debate the bill, thereby preventing its passage.
The first ongoing filibuster in the Senate began on February 18, 1841 and lasted until March 11. The longest individual filibuster speech in the U.S. Senate was delivered by Strom Thurmond. He spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes in an unsuccessful attempt to block the Civil Rights Act of 1957. He began by reading the entire text of each state's election laws.
On March 8, 1917 the power of the filibuster was considerably reduced in theory by the cloture rule in which 60 senators can sign a petition to end debate (the initial version of the rule called for 2/3 but that was later reduced to 3/5). Although cloture is uncommonly invoked, it does form an important part of Senate procedure as the threat of a fillibuster can cause a bill or nomination to be amended or withdrawn. This is important because the minority party in the Senate usually has more than 40 seats, making it possible for the minority party to block a bill or a presidental nomination from passage if they feel extremely strongly about it.
So, as others have posted, the only practical way to win is to make them actually filibuster. BTW, that's 3/5, not 60 vote. If they don't keep their entire block on the floor and we do, it could be done with 54 votes.
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.