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.
Frist/Rice would give any democrat a run for their money.
It strikes me as unconstitutional that one can establish a Senate rule that is then closed to voting from all future Senators. What is 1870 doing telling 2004 what their rules are? That is an unauthorized amendment of the constitution without going through the constitutional process.
Therefore, I support a constitutional process over a non-constitutional one no matter which party is in power.
If these senators still represented states instead of "the nation," then they'd be a bit more balanced.
Exactly. BUT....what doesn't appear is that the Senate Rules of 1890 can bind the country for the rest of history.
This Senate cannot be forbidden from establishing their own rules of the Senate in exactly the same way as the rules for their Senate were established by the very first Senate.
THAT is establishing something in history that amounts to a constitutional amendment without going through the constitutional amending process.
No branch of congress has the constitutional power to PERMANENTLY establish its own rules so that future branches cannot change them in the SAME way and at the same vote level as they were originally changed.
Was the very first Senate ever required to have a 2/3 majority in order to establish a rule? Nope...simple majority.
Therefore, an extra-constitutional process has been imposed on future Senates.
Put another way, why should the Senate of the year 2075 be REQUIRED to follow the rules of the Senate of 2000?
Sounds like the way to go to me.
The Senate used the British parliamentary device of "calling the previous question" which ended debate by a vote of the majority.
This is a very strange lie for the liberals to use: Thomas Jefferson's renowned "A MANUAL OF PARLIAMENTARY PRACTICE: for the Use of the Senate of the United States. " is widely available for anyone who wishes to see the original rules of the Senate!
I absolutely remember this, even worse Orin, actually suggested these two to Clinton, saying they would sail through.
Oh well what should we expect from a man who claims Ted Kennedy as his best friend?
Last summer he was 5 votes shy of the 50 needed. BUT...
Today (yes, in this session) he'd have at least 2-3 more: Specter would definitely vote for it just to try to ensure his chairmanship, and he would be willing to cash some chips among Chaffee, Snowe, etc to get their votes. So it is possible to get this changed on Tuesday 11/16, as a point of order, when the senate is in executive session to consider the nomination of Francis Harvey to Secretary of the Army.
That can happen this session, and next session's Senate - with 55 Repubs - would never vote to reverse this rule.
Frist & Lott have both said they could do this right after the November election. Let's hold them to it... contact the senators
I agree that the timing is now.
If this is accomplished, then it doesn't matter if Specter becomes chair or not.
Good idea.
bingo.
Frist & the GOP can do this now, this term, before we even have a 55-team majority! And expecially now that RINO Specter is fighting for his future and can drag the other RINOs kicking and screaming.
This can happen on Tues 11/16/04, as a point of order, when the senate is in executive session to consider the nomination of Francis Harvey to Secretary of the Army. And next session's 55 Repubs would leave the rule in place.
Frist & Lott have both said they could do this right after the November election. Let's hold them to it...
CONTACT THE GOP SENATORS NOW!
BE A FILIBUSTER BUSTER
Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding judicial nominations in the newly-elected session of Congress. It is an honor to serve in the United States Senate.
The Constitution's "advice and consent" clause clearly gives the Senate the prerogative to accept or reject any of the President's judicial nominations. Unfortunately, a minority of Senators have been using Senate rules to stop the confirmation of many of these nominees and thwart the will of the majority. Their unwise and dangerous efforts are unprecedented and must not be allowed to succeed. That is why I have taken several steps to address this attack on our Constitution and judicial system. On June 5, 2003, I proposed a narrow change to Senate rules that would prohibit long term filibustering of judicial nominees. On November 12 - 14, 2003, I held the Senate in session for almost forty straight hours the longest continuous debate in over 10 years to force the minority to defend their actions.
believe that the American voters sent a very clear and stunning message in the November 2, 2004, elections. That is why, as I begin work as Majority Leader in the 109th Congress, I will continue to work to ensure that President Bush's judicial nominees receive fair treatment. I am sure the President will continue to nominate judges who believe in protecting the rule of law, and I am confident that the Senate will be able to confirm these judges in the 109th Congress. Activist judges who make law instead of interpreting law undermine the rule of law. It is imperative that the Judiciary Committee approve the Presidents judicial nominees and send them to the Senate floor for an up-or-down vote.
Rest assured, I will continue to fight for fair treatment of the President's judicial nominations. Anything less is unfair to the nominees, the President, the integrity of the judicial system and the American people.
Sincerely,
William H. Frist, M.D.
Majority Leader
United States Senate
P.S. Please visit http://frist.senate.gov to register for my e-mail newsletter.
I received that same form-email back on 11/9, and saw the article "GOP senators pushing for up-or-down vote" ( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1276801/posts ) the next day. This could finally be real.
Reply to that email.
Specter became a "Republican" in 1965 because there was no room for him to seek the Philadelphia district attorney's position with the majority Democrats. The Democrats have owned Philadelphia since 1951, but they also support the popular Arlen Specter brand of liberalism there.
It might be that the problem we have is that the Republican senators really don't believe in "Republicanism" and want to keep allowing Democrats to obstruct the judicial nominations. Many of our members seem content to have business as usual, it seems to me.
Sorry.....it will not pass until the new Senate takes over.
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.