Posted on 11/11/2004 6:37:18 PM PST by xzins
Frist Says Democrats' Judicial Filibusters Must Stop
By Jesse J. Holland Associated Press Writer Published: Nov 11, 2004
WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist on Thursday urged Democrats to stop blocking President Bush's federal court nominees and hinted that he may try to change Senate rules to thwart their delaying tactics. "One way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end," Frist, R-Tenn., said in a speech to the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group.
The Democrats' ability to stall White House picks for the federal bench was one of the most contentious issues of Bush's first term. Despite the GOP majority in the Senate, Democrats used the threat of a filibuster to block 10 of Bush's nominees to federal appeals courts. The Senate did confirm more than 200 of the president's choices.
Republicans hope their gain of four seats on Election Day will discourage Democrats from using filibusters again. But in a Senate next year with 45 Republicans, 44 Democrats and a Democrat-leaning independent, Democrats still will have the 40 votes necessary to uphold a filibuster.
Frist said filibustering judicial nominees is "radical. It is dangerous and it must be overcome. The Senate must be allowed to confirm judges who fairly, justly and independently interpret the law."
"The Senate cannot allow the filibuster of circuit court nominees to continue." Frist said. "Nor can we allow the filibuster to extend to potential Supreme Court nominees."
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, 80, is seriously ill with thyroid cancer, and three other justices have had cancer. The average age of the nine court members is 70. Speculation on a Supreme Court retirement has grown in part because there has been no vacancy in more than 10 years.
The Bush's administration's former chief lawyer at the high court told the organization earlier Thursday that "any attempted new appointment to the court, especially that of a chief justice, will set off a political firestorm."
Theodore Olson added, "The presidential election was merely about the next four years. A Supreme Court justice is for life. It will not be pretty." Olson, who represented Bush before the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore four years ago and then became solicitor general after Bush took office, predicted that the president would get to name as many as three justices during his second term.
Frist previously has advocated changing Senate rules to make it more difficult to continue a filibuster. While the idea went nowhere in the current Congress, Frist raised it again in his speech, saying that judicial filibusters were "nothing less than a formula for tyranny by the minority."
"The Senate now faces a choice: Either we accept a new and destructive practice or we act to restore constitutional balance," he said.
To block some of Bush's nominees, Democrats have used procedures that required Republicans to come up with 60 votes to advance the president's choices. It takes 60 votes in the 100-member Senate to break a filibuster, meaning some Democrats would have to side with Republicans.
Olson reminded the group of what he called malicious attacks on previous conservative nominees Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork. Thomas, named by Bush's father, was narrowly approved. Bork, a Reagan choice, was rejected.
"It could easily be worse next time around," Olson said.
Olson has been mentioned as a possible high court pick, but his confirmation for solicitor general was rocky.
---
Associated Press writer Gina Holland contributed to this report.
Yes, but how would Frist fair in the general election, against Hillary, with an issue she'll use to try and appeal to the so-called moderate woman?
Many women here in the Northeast, who are conservative on a number of issues are still off-the-boat when it comes to abortion.
"45 Republicans, 44 Democrats and a Democrat-leaning independent..."
Um.......55, 44, Indepen. I think.
Well this policy sure worked well for us when we were in the minority. </sarcasm>
No....need 2/3 majority.
BUT...the Chair can issue a ruling denying fillibusters and that can be upheld by a simple majority.
That would do the same thing.
How many Dems would join on going nuc....my guess is only one or two max since it is much more than just voting to end a fillibuster.
No it is not. A SINGLE senator can hold the floor, and a couple of them can trade off for quite a while. On the other side, a quorum call can be initiated at any time, and a quorum must be present within the specified time or the body must recess. And the talkers can spring a surprise and bring in all of their members to manipulate the majority present, and cause all kinds of havoc. This is NOT a simple process, unless the filibustering minority is VERY small.
"But in a Senate next year with 45 Republicans, 44 Democrats and a Democrat-leaning independent, Democrats still will have the 40 votes necessary to uphold a filibuster."
Folks....the nuclear option stands a decent shot of passing this go around.
Dascle has been replaced with a conservative. This means that if the 5 GOP defections as Frist found in polling last year still defect, and we lose nobody else, we could poll it off.
Frist was not weak and spineless last term....they tried hard to get rule changes passed, but there were not enough votes.
The only thing I fault him on is not forcing them to do real fillibusters. And frankly, I feel like that is a last resort......try to change the rules first.
Stopping each little fillibuster is a short-term solution. We need longer term, the nuclear option.
There is a need for the 60 vote to get cloture. The republicans remember the times when they were the minority and could use it to stop things. However, there is also a way to keep it and still get the nominees a vote up [51] or down. Modify the rule to eliminate it's use for nominees. How hard can that be. That would get the nomination process back to what it was meant to be.
At the very least such oration should be required to (1) keep on topic (2) not be repetitive. Some gridlock in Congress is good.
Oh okay, I didn't know it could be handed off. Thanks for clearing that up.
So we have a meta-filibuster.
And if that is to be argued, then a meta-meta-filibuster.
And...
Now the Republican filibuster of Bush nominees can start.
Now the Republican filibuster of Bush nominees can start.
I wonder if Frist is offering just words or real action here.
I believe that Bill Frist is "too nice" for the majority leader's position. Can anyone imagine anyone saying that about former Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson, D-TX, from 1955-61?
But remember outgoing Chairman Orrin G. Hatch actually SPONSORED the nominations of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, the latter a former aide to the popular EMK.
BINGO!
Appoint John Kyl to chair the judiciary and change the vote for confirmation of judges to a simple majority (51%).
That should do the trick.
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.