Frist Says Democrats' Judicial Filibusters Must Stop

AP ^ | 11Nov04 | Jesse J. Holland Associated Press Writer

[xzins]

Frist/Rice would give any democrat a run for their money.

[xzins]

shoe on the other foot

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.

[xzins]

If these senators still represented states instead of "the nation," then they'd be a bit more balanced.

[xzins]

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.

[xzins]

each house of Congress has the power to establish its own rules.

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?

[ELS]

Each Senate, at the beginning of the term, can make its own rules, change old rules, or throw out unwanted rules. AND by simple majority vote WITHOUT the possibility of filibuster.

Sounds like the way to go to me.

[mrsmith]

Originally filibusters were not allowed in the Senate.

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!

[itsahoot]

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.

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?

[sanchmo]

at the end of last summer... He polled the republicans about going nuclear. Up to 5 RINOs responded that they would not support

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

[xzins]

I agree that the timing is now.

If this is accomplished, then it doesn't matter if Specter becomes chair or not.

Good idea.

[sanchmo]

bingo.

[sanchmo]

Hey, team...

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

[Henchman]

This seems to bt Sen Frist's present stand. His "plan" isn't stated. I think he is sincere.

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 President’s 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.

[sanchmo]

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.

[Theodore R.]

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.

[Theodore R.]

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.

[rwfromkansas]

Sorry.....it will not pass until the new Senate takes over.