BE A FILIBUSTER BUSTER - we can stop the filibuster of nominees RIGHT NOW

[sanchmo]

Worried about the Senate's ability to give Pres Bush's appoitments a fair committee hearing and an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor? Blocking Arlen Spector's selection to the Charimanship of the Juducuary Committee will help give the President's appointments a fair hearing in the Judiciary Committee (See Always Right's: Remove Specter from the Judiciary). But that alone will not ensure a vote on the floor for judges or any other appointments.

• If Specter is selected Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, we may have difficulty giving President Bush's judicial appointments fair hearings in that committee.
• If Specter does not become chairman, he and the RINOs can easily turn on the GOP, effectively returning a decisive 55-vote majority back into a weak 51-vote majority.
• Additionally, the President's non-judiciary appointments - like Gonzalez for Attorney General - will be critical to his abiliy to wage the War ot Terror.

There is something else you can do to help President Bush get his nominees to an up-or-down floor vote:

Pressure the GOP to change Senate rules to prevent the filibuster of presidential nominees

• Contant the Senate GOP leadership and the GOP members of the Senate Rules Committee to demand that they immediately change Senate rules to prohibit filibustering of presidential appointments and nominations by Democrats and RINOs.
• Contact the GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to block Arlen Spector from the chairmanship, and to ensure the filibuster rules are changed before the new chariman is selected.

The Senate can do this right now, even in this 51-vote lame duck session. And the current pressure on Specter to prove his commitment to the GOP may help get the RINO vote. The next session's 55-GOP Senate would not change the rules back.

Bill Frist, Majority Leader, member of the Rules Committe
Bill_Frist@FristSenate.gov
Phone: 202-224-3344
Fax: 202-228-1264

Mitch McConnell, Majority Whip, member of the Rules Committee
senator@mcconnell.senate.gov
http://mcconnell.senate.gov/contact_form.cfm
Phone 202-224-2541
fax 202-224-2499

Rick Santorum, Senate GOP Conference Chairman, member of the Rules Committee
http://santorum.senate.gov/emailrjs.html
Phone 202-224-6324
fax 202-228-0604
fax 202-228-4991

Kay Bailey Hutchison, Senate GOP Conference Vice-Chair, member of the Rules Committee
http://hutchison.senate.gov/e-mail.htm
Phone 202-224-5922
fax 202-224-0776

George Allen, Chairman National GOP Senatorial Committee
http://allen.senate.gov/index.cfm?c=email
Phone 202-675-6000
fax 202-675-6058

Norm Coleman, candidate for chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee
http://coleman.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm
Phone 202-224-5641
fax 202-224-1152

Elizabeth Dole, candidate for chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee
http://dole.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInformation.ContactForm
Phone 202-224-6342
fax 202-224-1100

Trent Lott, Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee
senatorlott@lott.senate.gov
(202) 224-6253

Ted Stevens, Member of the Rules Committee
http://stevens.senate.gov/contact_form.cfm
(202) 224-3004

Thad Cochran, Member of the Rules Committee
http://cochran.senate.gov/contact.htm
(202) 224-5054

Don Nickles, Member of the Rules Committee
http://nickles.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Email
(202) 224-5754

Gordon Smith, Member of the Rules Committee
http://gsmith.senate.gov/webform.htm
(202) 224-3753

Orrin G. Hatch, current Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee
http://hatch.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Offices.Contact
Tel: (202) 224-5251
Fax: (202) 224-6331

C. Saxby Chambliss, member Judiciary Committee, member Rules Committee
saxby_chambliss@chambliss.senate.gov
http://chambliss.senate.gov/Contact/default.cfm?pagemode=1
Tel: (202) 224-3521
Fax: (202) 224-0103

Charles E. Grassley, member Judiciary Committee
http://grassley.senate.gov/webform.htm
Tel: (202) 224-3744
Fax: (202) 224-6020

Jon Kyl, member Judiciary Committee
http://kyl.senate.gov/contact.cfm
Tel: (202) 224-4521
Fax: (202) 224-2207

Mike DeWine, member Judiciary Committee
http://dewine.senate.gov
Tel: (202) 224-2315
Fax: (202) 224-6519

Jeff Sessions, member Judiciary Committee
http://sessions.senate.gov/contact.htm#form
Tel: (202) 224-4124
Fax: (202) 224-3149

Lindsey Graham, member Judiciary Committee
http://lgraham.senate.gov/index.cfm?mode=contact
Tel: (202) 224-5972
Fax: (202) 224-1189

Larry Craig, member Judiciary Committee
http://craig.senate.gov/webform.html
Tel: (202) 224-2752
Fax: (202) 228-1067

John Cornyn, member Judiciary Committee
http://cornyn.senate.gov/contact/index.html
Tel: (202) 224-2934
Fax: (202) 228-2856

Contact your own Senator:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

"We cannot allow a minority, a small group of members, to grab the Senate by the throat and hold it there."
- Democratic Senators Patrick Leahy, Ted Kennedy, Joseph Biden, Robert Byrd, Daniel Inouye, and Mike Mansfield in 1975, when they used a "nuclear option" to change the Senate rules on filibusters.

[sanchmo]

ABOUT THE "NUCLEAR OPTION"
The "nuclear option" is not that nuclear at all. The only "nuclear" thing about it is what Daschle and the Democrats threatened as a respose.

From GOP senators pushing for up-or-down vote
Republicans could ask their presiding officer - most likely Vice President Dick Cheney - to rule that it was unconstitutional to require more than 51 votes to confirm a nominee. Republicans would have to muster only a simple majority to sustain that ruling - thus setting a precedent that judicial nominees could not be filibustered. The rule-change tactic was last used by Democrats in 1975...

From Frist finger on ‘nuclear’ button (May 13, 2004)
The most likely scenario would be for a Republican senator to raise a point of order that the process of naming conferees may not be filibustered. Then the chair — most likely to be Vice President Dick Cheney during such a momentous point in Senate history — would sustain the point of order... If the motion to table garnered 51 votes, the rules of the Senate would be effectively changed. The same tactic could be used to declare that the confirmation of presidential nominees could not be filibustered...

From Lott says he’ll seek a fourth term in 2006 (November 10, 2004)
Lott might seek the “nuclear option” in getting President Bush’s judicial nominees a floor vote. Republicans have discussed the use of that controversial tactic in recent months. Using that approach, Republicans would be able to change Senate rules with only 51 votes — as opposed to the 67 usually needed — to safeguard judicial nominees from filibuster.

From Will Senate Republicans "go nuclear" over judges? (September 13, 2004)
Sen. Lott... doesn't expect the Republican leadership to go nuclear on judges--if it does at all--until after the election or early 2005 (assuming Bush and a GOP Senate majority are reelected).

From Frist Says Democrats' Judicial Filibusters Must Stop (Nov 11, 2004)
"One way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end," Frist said. "The Senate now faces a choice: Either we accept a new and destructive practice or we act to restore constitutional balance."

From GOP senators pushing for up-or-down vote
Sen. Arlen Specter, the moderate Pennsylvania Republican in line to chair the Judiciary Committee, is under strong pressure from conservatives in his party to promise he would support a move to give Bush's nominees an up-or-down vote in the Senate by helping GOP leaders force a change in a nearly century-old rule to prevent a judge from being blocked by a filibuster...

[Cedar]

Thanks for your continued efforts on this.

[sanchmo]

"We cannot allow a minority, a small group of members, to grab the Senate by the throat and hold it there."
- Democratic Senators Patrick Leahy, Ted Kennedy, Joseph Biden, Robert Byrd, Daniel Inouye, and Mike Mansfield in 1975, when they used a "nuclear option" to change the Senate rules on filibusters.

[Texas Eagle]

ABOUT THE "NUCLEAR OPTION" The "nuclear option" is not that nuclear at all. The only "nuclear" thing about it is what Daschle and the Democrats threatened as a respose.

The "nuclear option" is nothing more than following The Constitution. President Bush needs to take this issue to the bully pulpit. I don't mind coming to his defense but I sure would appreciate it if he'd do a little to frame this issue himself.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Route101]

Arlen Sphincter will prevent President Bush from appointing the conservative judges we need.....

[ppaul]

Or, better yet, let President Bush appoint every one of his nominees while Congress is in recess, as he is allowed to do by law. Then, who cares if Arlen Sphincter comes back or not. Every one of Bush's picks will be in. Sure, the RATS and RINOs will be pissed - but they'd be pissed anyway, no matter what. So lets have a bunch of recess appointments, and screw the judicial committee. For me, that would be satisfying indeed. How about y'all?

[Southack]

Getting around Senate filibusters is easy; budget bills can't be filibustered.

So simply include Senate approval along with the line items for the judicial nominees' federal salaries in the Senate budget itself.

Poof! Filibuster busted...no rules changed.

[Southack]

"Bush is the one who campaigned to have Specter chair the committee..."

That's how lies get started...one lone nut posts some garbage that *sounds* true, but that isn't.

[ppaul]

That "lie" has been kickin' around here for some time.

[narses]

Ping.

[Who-is-John-G]

His "Bully pulpit" would be greatly strengthened if he were to replace that frightened deer Scott McClellan. Bush's voice to the public is through his press secretary. This guy may be a nice chap but he is an extremely weak front man. So, while Bush is tidying up his cabinet, a gold watch ceremony for McClellan is certainly in order.

[Henchman]

Bush has had an op to appoint judges during Congressional recess for 4 years. He lacked the testicular fortitude to do it, and it will be so for the next 4 years. The GOP, unfortunately, will loose the House and Senate 2 years from now, closing their window of opportunity.

[ppaul]

Very sad.
But I am afraid you are right.
With Republican control of the executive and legislative branches, we could have hoped for a real healing of our free republic, i.e.: doing away with the income tax and death taxes, ending the social experimet of women in combat, repeal of all he "politically correct" regulations, tighten our porous borders, etc. But my fear is that President Bush doesn't have the Giuliani's to affect any real systemic changes. I hope I am wrong.

[J. Rzrezsk]

A filibuster is a gimmick to hold the floor so as to prevent others from speaking. If the Senate is the world's greatest deliberative body, how does keeping other senators from speaking at all live up to that reputation? If the minority has rights, doesn't the majority have at least equal rights? Does the minority have the right to speak so as to prevent the majority from speaking at all?

If filibustering has been tolerated on certain matters in the past, has this been the Senate at its best, or has this been the Senate at its worst, for the sake of some semblance of peace bowing to certain members' willful obstructionism? If the number of matters on which the filibuster is now tolerated is expanded, does this make the Senate better, or does this make the Senate less? What sort of respect for other members does taking over the floor exclusively unto oneself show? Does the majority show respect for the minority when it allows them to be willful? Isn't the filibuster simply a way to protect the minority from being a minority? When the minority is the minority, and the majority is the majority, isn't that called "democracy"? When the minority will not act like a minority, isn't that ignoring the will of the people, who made them the minority?

It is said, that If you treat a minority like a minority, if they ever become the majority they will in turn treat you like a minority. But isn't a minority supposed to be treated like a minority? Isn't that the way it has always been? If there have been instances where the minority wasn't treated like a minority, did this work for the benefit of things?