Frist Says Democrats' Judicial Filibusters Must Stop

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

[livius]

Good point. If he wants that prize, he's got to show some guts, and do it now.

[taxesareforever]

Frist," Now you guys just stop it". What a joke. Republicans have never carried thru on any threats and the demorats know it. It is high time the Republicans started acting like warriors instead of tip-toeing thru the tulips.

[Fledermaus]

Yeah, Frist (my senator) is starting to sound like the Hans B"r"ix character in Team America.

[marktwain]

But in a Senate next year with 45 Republicans, 44 Democrats and a Democrat-leaning independent,

I know AP is willing to lie to elect Democrats, but you would think even *they* would know that it hurts their credibility to understate the number of Republican senators by 10!

There will be 55 Republicans, not 45.

[bayourod]

"judicial filibusters were "nothing less than a formula for tyranny by the minority. "

DUH! All the Senate rules are designed to increase the power of individual Senators who must shakedown lobbyest for an average of over $100,000 a month in contributions.

That's why they always elect weak leaders also.

[Libertina]

Absolutely correct! And if we cleaned up the Spectre problem, the rat problem might fade somewhat on its own. Unfortunately, the Senate Republicans have a bite as fierce as the UN's... :(

[petertare]

If Fristy keeps playing the dems game--then he probably need not appear again here in Iowa---his 08 plans will tank.

[sport]

Let them change the rules.

[eeriegeno]

Let them play their silly-ass filibuster games! Come next election the new Senate minority leader's head will be delivered to the DNC just as little Tommy's was!!! They are getting very, very, very close to a 'filibuster proof' Senate and ought not be playing games with that procedure.....

[xzins]

Why? Because a minority, under present Senate rules, prevails over a majority - even though that topsy-turvy proposition is nowhere to be found, as might be imagined, in the U.S. Constitution. Well, you say, just change the rules. Sure, says the Democratic minority, all you need is 67 votes. Whoa! Wait a minute, says Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who was elected in 2002. I never had a chance to vote on these odd existing rules, and neither has a bipartisan group of 10 freshman senators. Too bad, says the minority. We not only determine the outcome, we also entrench our control of it by a two-thirds (67-vote) rule-change requirement that is carried over from a previous Senate.

This makes no sense, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has introduced a straightforward resolution to untangle the mess. S. Res. 138 seeks to amend rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate to provide for more timely consideration of all nominees requiring the advice and consent of the Senate. The proposed amendment would accomplish this by providing for declining majorities for subsequent cloture votes to close debate on nominations until, on the fourth try, only 51 votes would be needed.

The Senate Rules and Administration Committee now has sent S. Res. 138 to the floor and, even though the proposal makes tremendous sense, it's headed for a fight. Majority leader or not, Frist is being told he can't have it unless he has a supermajority of 67 votes. The Democratic position is flat out unconstitutional.

The unconstitutionality of allowing a previous legislature to prevent a subsequent one from exercising its full legislative authority is age-old and near axiomatic. Sir William Blackstone posited that "acts of parliament derogatory from the power of subsequent parliaments bind not." This understanding is embedded in our Founders' own suppositions about legislative power. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson both felt strongly about religious freedom and secured the enactment of the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom. But however much they wished that enactment never to be repealed or altered, they acknowledged expressly that a legislative assembly has "not [the] power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to [their] own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law."

This precept is unassailably a part of preserving the "consent of the governed." The U.S. Supreme Court simply cited authority in a 1996 decision for the principle, noting that "the will of a particular Congress does not impose itself upon those to follow in succeeding years" and that the principle is "so obvious as rarely to be stated."

[xzins]

see #30

[MHGinTN]

"Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist on Thursday urged Democrats ..." Ball-less Frist asks pretty please ...

[FreeReign]

Democrats still will have the 40 votes necessary to uphold a filibuster.

We CAN break the filibuster.

Certainly there must be five Democrat senators from red states whose feet can be held to the fire.

Nelson brom Nebraska, Baucus from Montana, the three remaining Demoncrat senators from the Dakota's.

Daschle is gone now. It's great that he was targeted, but we need to target more than just one. It's time to target all the others.

When was the last time you heard Rush talk about Nelson, Baucus and the others? When was the last time Rush talked about how these guys vote 90% liberal even though their constituents are "red state" through and through?

[xzins]

See #30

[foreverfree]

One way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end

When pigs fly, I'm afraid.

ff

[FreeReign]

"Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist on Thursday urged Democrats ..." Ball-less Frist asks pretty please ...

Why do you quote AP's balless use of the word "urge" and blame it on Frist?

This is what Frist said. Did you miss it?

Frist:"One way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end,"

[xzins]

Frist explained the situation at the end of last summer but no one was paying attention.

He polled the republicans about going nuclear. Up to 5 RINOs responded that they would not support.

My guess on the names of the 5: Chaffee, Snowe, Specter, McCain....???

If it is the same 5 and there are no new defections, then the rules changes would win a 50-50 tie with VP Cheney breaking the tie.

[ConservativeMan55]

Make Dr. Coburn the majority leader and I promise you won't have these problems anymore!

He's going to put his foot down. I guarandamntee it!!

[gmoore57]

You know what kills me about this whole thing is that the Rats don't even have to do a real fillibuster to stop legislation. They just threaten one and everybody clams up and goes home for the night. In the old days you had to hold the floor for as many hours as it took. Those guys would talk for hours on end. The majority needs to stand firm and force the minority to put up (for hours at a time) or shut up.

[Delphinium]

Must make sure Specter does not get the chair, he is as bad as any democrat.