Posted on 11/11/2004 6:37:18 PM PST by xzins
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the opposition just threaten to filibuster and that usually prevents the vote? Call their bluff and make them stand in the well and talk until they drop. See what they're made of instead of just rolling over before the "threat".
Frist is a Senator from my state. I'm acutely aware of his namby pamby ways. Frist believes he can be gentlemanly with the rats and get what he thinks is right. As a politician, he's a feckless ego trying to fill a suit. He was a darn good heart surgeon, but he's a wimpyman as a Senate Majority Leader.
""The Senate cannot allow the filibuster of circuit court nominees to continue."
So, what are you going to do about it?"
Same as he has since Day 1: Piss and moan about it. Supermodels have more hair on their ass than what passes for today's Senate Republican "leadsers". Bunch of gutless pansies.
Refreshing. Now let's hope we get more out of this than empty talk.
Frist is Majority Leader. He has 54 party colleagues to pass a rules change. It is up to him. He needs to display leadership, use the power of his position, do some arm twisting if necessary on a couple of the RINO's still standing.
He gave a great little speech on CSPAN, but preaching about the problem to the choir is of no value. Come the next Congress, Frist needs to act decisively.
Have there been any filibusters? Or just the usual Dem threat of a filibuster followed by an immediate surrender by the Republicans? I want Klansman Byrd reading the phonebook on the Senate floor for 24 hours. I expect there will be nothing more important this Senate term than the appointment of Supreme and Appeals Court justices. I don't want the Republicans to surrender.
That's not the way to end the filibuster. With 45 on their side, they can go on indefinitely. Too many people to hand it off to.
The proper way is a rules change.
Does the Senate majority leader have to be a Senator? Does he even have to be a Republican? Zell Miller would be a great pick.
This is one of the more short-sighted statements I have read on FR in a long time. It is only because of the filibuster that the long dry period from Hoover till now was not a whole lot worse. Given the open war between the relious right and constitutional conservatives, with some intelligent democrats circling the battle like hyenas, this republican majority may not last long.
Specter is a liberal. I have no idea why he ever wanted to add Repub to his name OTHER THAN conduct behind the scenes espionage and treachery against the conservatives.
No, there were active filibusters on a number of candidates and colutre motions failed. It was more than just and empty threat.
I heard some pundit say that Republicans need to learn to act like the winners. They need to act like the Majority in the Senate.
I watch c-span and c-span 2 and I think is wrong, wrong, wrong, that the Minority can affect things so much.. What good does it do to be the majority. Do you guys know that any senator at any time for any reason can put a "hold" on an amendment or bill? I could be for anything as stupid as being talked about on the floor without being present. It is also secret so that no one knows and can put pressure on that Senator.
These childish rules have got to go if the Senate is ever going to get anything accomplished. I for one do not want my tax dollars to go to salaries, and the running of the senate if they are just going to whine and cry and play games until they get their way.
I see no difference between judicial filibusters and filibusters in general. Each results in a tyranny of the minority. Either they are both okay or they both should go.
You're wrong. Debate on a change to the rules of the Senate can only be closed with the consent of two-thirds of the Senators present and voting...that's 67 votes, a "super fillibuster", as opposed to the 60 required to close debate on other questions. See Senate rule XXII.
Makes the possibility of a rule change highly unlikly. While I'd like to impute pure and noble motives to the Senate Republicans, I don't think enough of them will want to give up the possibility of having this leverage for their own future use. What if the shoe was on the other foot with John Kerry elevating some ultra-liberal judge from the California 9th District Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court and the Repulicans were in the Senate minority?
I wish Tom DeLay were Senate Majority Leader. He'd be "the exterminator" in more ways than one.
The case for ending judicial or presidential appointment filibusters is because the Constitution specifically set up a process of executive/legislative coordination that preceded the adoption of any housekeeping rules by the Senate.
The filibuster does NOT appear in the constitution.
The appointment process does.
DeLay isn't a Senator.
Which possibility was very close to being realized and could well be in one or two election cycles. We all understand the impatience to radicalize the SC on certain issues (called conservative if you agree with it all), but real change procedes at what many will perceive to be a glacial pace. It is the genius of the system put in place by our founding fathers. It may be frustratingly slow, but it keeps things from getting too out of kilter too fast. It keeps us from being like Italy or France.
I'm well aware of that.
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.