Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Republicans to Go on Offensive Over Judges
Yahoo News ^ | 4/15/05 | JESSE J. HOLLAND

Posted on 04/15/2005 1:32:54 PM PDT by Libloather

Republicans to Go on Offensive Over Judges
1 hour, 48 minutes ago
By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Senate Republicans are moving to put some muscle behind their pitch to eliminate judicial filibusters after watching liberals push out TV ads against them in anticipation of a showdown over who sits on federal appeals courts.

"They're ahead of the power curve," Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said of the orchestrated effort by Democrats and groups such as MoveOn.org and People for the American Way. "I think you'll see a greater, stepped-up message on part of the Republicans, to go on offense on this issues."

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, after vowing last fall to stop Democrats from blocking the most conservative of President Bush's nominees, will appear in a telecast later this month with leaders of social conservative groups.

According to a flier for the Louisville, Ky., event, it will focus on how judicial filibusters are being used "against people of faith." The telecast is being organized by the Family Research Council, which sponsored a similar event last year opposing gay marriage. First's staff said he will probably record his message for the telecast.

The Tennessee Republican, a likely contender for his party's presidential nomination in 2008, is under pressure to force a Senate showdown before Congress breaks May 27 for a long Memorial Day recess.

To change Senate rules so that Democrats can no longer block Bush's nominees with filibusters requiring just 41 votes, Frist needs a simple majority in the 100-member Senate. He can get that by mustering 50 votes and bringing in Vice President Dick Cheney as the tiebreaker.

The Senate has 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and one independent. But a half-dozen GOP senators either have said they oppose or have refused to support changing the rules.

Frist's plan has been dubbed the "nuclear option" because Democrats have promised to retaliate by blocking the rest of Bush's legislative agenda — excluding spending and highway bills and national security measures. His supporters call it the "constitutional option," saying the forefathers never intended to let a minority of the Senate block a president's choices for judgeships.

Democrats have blocked 10 of Bush's 52 appeals court nominations through filibuster threats, while allowing the confirmation of 34 others. They have said they plan to keep blocking those 10 if they are brought up for confirmation again, and will block other nominees they consider to be too conservative. Writings or judicial opinions on abortion, civil or labor rights and the environment are often a litmus test.

People for the American Way and MoveOn PAC have been running television ads for weeks trying to discourage Republicans from forcing a showdown over filibusters. Democratic leaders Harry Reid in the Senate and Nancy Pelosi in the House have coordinated a message accusing majority Republicans of "abuse of power" and "arrogance."

"Our voice is being lost," Frist said this week. "From a leadership standpoint, we've held back, which has allowed the vacuum to be filled by lots of other voices. I hope what you will see over the next several weeks is us to do a better job."

To help publicize their message, a GOP group called the Advise and Consent Working Group now issues daily recaps of what GOP senators say about judicial nominations and rebuts Democrats' statements on the issues.

Republican senators have joined Democrats in giving daily speeches on the subject from the Senate floor. New conservative organizations like the Judicial Confirmation Network and the National Coalition to End Judicial Filibusters are entering the fray to counter MoveOn and People for the American Way.

The Judicial Confirmation Network has planned an initial $250,000 ad buy on cable television to counter the liberal ads.

"The other side has started a pretty aggressive campaign," said Wendy Long, the group's lawyer. "We didn't want to just sit here and do nothing."

Some conservative groups have held off spending money on the filibuster battle, saving resources for an anticipated Supreme Court fight. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 80, is fighting thyroid cancer, and many people expect a retirement from the nation's highest court before President Bush ends his second term.

But conservative senators and advocacy groups say there must be a resolution on the filibuster before that happens. Needing 60 votes to confirm a Supreme Court justice might affect whether Bush picks a conservative or a moderate, they say.

Thune said a high-profile Supreme Court nomination and a simultaneous fight over whether that person can be filibustered by Democrats might muddy the water and make both objectives more difficult.


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 109th; filibuster; go; judges; judicialnominees; offensive; over; republicans; ussenate
It's about time to bus a move...
1 posted on 04/15/2005 1:32:56 PM PDT by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Libloather

How many Democrats are there in Red States? They may not be in favor of a filibuster.


2 posted on 04/15/2005 1:35:29 PM PDT by Cowboy Bob (Question Liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

NOT. ONE. DIME. I will not contribute one thin dime to any Republican cause unless and until Bush's judicial nominees receive a straight up-or-down vote in the Senate.


3 posted on 04/15/2005 1:35:39 PM PDT by So Cal Rocket (Proud Member: Internet Pajama Wearers for Truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Great news.


4 posted on 04/15/2005 1:35:56 PM PDT by jveritas (The Left cannot win a national election ever again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Tapping foot.....fingers......waiting................


5 posted on 04/15/2005 1:41:06 PM PDT by goodnesswins (Our military......the world's HEROES!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
I'll believe it when I see it...Haven't we heard this before...?
6 posted on 04/15/2005 1:41:37 PM PDT by matymac (Living in the Heart of the Beast...the People's Republic of Cambridge...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Some of the President's nominees have been waiting over two years, and I won't even mention Miguel Estrada who withdrew after over two years of waiting for a vote. Frist and Company need to stop talking about taking action, and take some guldarn action!
7 posted on 04/15/2005 1:41:51 PM PDT by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: So Cal Rocket

I just returned that same message in the latest request for money from the gutless majority.


8 posted on 04/15/2005 1:42:46 PM PDT by DrewsDad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
"I'll do it.... I swear I'm gonna do it..... are you listening to me?.... I'm serious this time..... I'll do it.... Realllly serious!!..... You'll see.... don't tempt me, 'cause I'll do it.... I'm not playing around any more..... you'll see...... you'll all see....... we're not kidding................ I'll do it................"

Gutless wonders.

9 posted on 04/15/2005 1:45:24 PM PDT by theDentist (The Dems are putting all their eggs in one basket-case: Howard "Belltower" Dean.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cowboy Bob
"They're ahead of the power curve," Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said of the orchestrated effort by Democrats and groups such as MoveOn.org and People for the American Way. "I think you'll see a greater, stepped-up message on part of the Republicans, to go on offense on this issues."

Let me get this straight. We just had a national election a little over 5 months ago. In addition to re-electing a Republican president, Republicans increased their majority in both the Senate and the House and in governorships.

NOW TELL ME WHY REPUBLICANS NEED TO GET SOME "MESSAGE" OUT?

You mean to tell me that after the recent national elections Republicans are ALREADY getting weak in the knees? What message did the last election NOT send to these bone heads?

10 posted on 04/15/2005 2:00:54 PM PDT by Obadiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Obadiah

I'm still so steamed over my AZ senator (whome I DID NOT VOTE FOR last NOV!) put out his BS about not voting to stop the filibuster...I knew we should have made more of an effort to get rid of MCLAME! Limp willied RINO!


11 posted on 04/15/2005 2:03:13 PM PDT by princess leah (\)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

DO IT ALREADY!

Senator Frist, If you don't have the votes, do it anyway! I want these red state Dems and turncoat Reps on record. Let them face the scorn of their constituents. Identify our enemies. Allow us to know who is going to do this and spend the next year and half making their lives and re-elections miserable.


12 posted on 04/15/2005 2:14:58 PM PDT by Soul Seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather


Friday, April 15, 2005

Tricky Dick up to it again...


Illinois Senator Dick Durbin took the floor this afternoon to rant and rave about GOP abuse of power. Never in the Senate's history, claimed Durbin, has a majority of the Senate voted to change the rules.

As usual, Durbin scores a ten on style and a zero on substance.

Here are the facts:

A majority of Senators has also always possessed the constitutional power to establish new Senate precedents – including precedents that reverse prior precedents, and precedents that contravene the text of the standing rules of the Senate.

In fact, Senator Robert Byrd led the charge to establish new Senate precedents in 1977, 1979, 1980, and 1987 – including a number of precedents that were designed specifically to stop filibusters and other delay tactics that were previously authorized under Senate rules or prior precedents:

* In 1977, Senator Byrd led the establishment of a new precedent in order to break a post-cloture filibuster on a natural gas deregulation bill, stating: “I make the point of order that when the Senate is operating under cloture, the Chair is required to take the initiative under Rule XXII to rule out of order all amendments which are dilatory or which on their face are out of order.” That precedent contravened prior precedent, which would have required the Chair to await a point of order from the floor.

* In 1979, Senator Byrd led the establishment of a new precedent that allowed the Chair to rule on questions of germaneness raised during the consideration of appropriations bills – notwithstanding Senate Rule XVI, which states that all questions of germaneness on appropriations bills must be decided by the full Senate.

* In 1980, Senator Byrd led the establishment of a new precedent to require an immediate vote, without debate, on any motion to go into executive session to consider a particular nomination. His new precedent was specifically designed, in his words, to “deal with a filibuster on the motion to proceed” to a nomination. Previously, a motion to proceed to a particular nomination was debatable. The new precedent was sustained by a vote of 54-38.

* In 1987, Senator Byrd caused establishment of a new precedent declaring that certain tactics were to be construed as dilatory during roll call votes and therefore always out of order no matter what – even though the text of the Senate rules had clearly authorized such tactics. Previously, dilatory tactics were out of order only after cloture had been invoked.

Source: http://fromthebleachers.blogspot.com, posted by chappy22
13 posted on 04/15/2005 2:16:29 PM PDT by OESY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

bump


14 posted on 04/15/2005 2:28:46 PM PDT by jonno (We are NOT a democracy - though we are democratic. We ARE a constitutional republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Ill believe it when I see it


15 posted on 04/15/2005 2:32:34 PM PDT by Tiger Smack (http://www.tigersmack.com <------- for LSU & SEC sports/news/stuff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Whatever happened to Miguel Estrada?


16 posted on 04/15/2005 2:36:39 PM PDT by Saundra Duffy (Rest in Peace, Theresa Marie SCHINDLER - IMPEACH JUDGE GREER!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
I had a dream last night about the gift that I hope we give to the Senate libs, as a gesture of "comity":
17 posted on 04/15/2005 2:43:45 PM PDT by Deo et Patria (Deo et Patria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cowboy Bob
How many Democrats are there in Red States?

The impact of 2004 Values Voters---the Catholic, Black, and denominational religious vote----is so striking, even Hillary is trying to look like Mother Teresa. Here's why:

Conservative pro-life Christian voters made monumental contributions to GWB's 2004 vote totals. Pres Bush won with 63 Million Votes (13 million more than 2000).

The map, though impressive, conveys the misleading impression that blue state Catholics voted for Kerry (a CINO).

According to EWTN "The World Over Live" analysts, with the exception of VA, where Catholics spit 70/30 in favor of Bush, the majority of Catholic voters split 55/45 for Bush.....a whopping number of votes since Catholics number about 52 million Americans.

According to CNN exit polls, Bush voters included 38% of union members, 40% of those with union members in their households, 42% of those earning $15,000-$30,000, 44% of those who earn under $50,000 and 44% of Latinos, 45% of youth (aged 18-29), 13% of liberals—even 11% of Democrats voted for Bush.

2004 Election polls indicated 34% called themselves conservative, 21% liberal.

The National Association of Evangelicals, represents 39 million churchgoers. There are an estimated one billion Catholics around the world, and according to the Church of England, there are 70 million Anglicans. America's census bureau said 159 million US citizens describe themselves as Christians.

If you look closely, the map appears to place the insignificant "Other Voters" in the ocean.....that's accurate, because "Other Voters--RINO Republicans" were on cruise ships while the rest of Americans were home working.

(MAP UPDATE Bush won Ohio, Iowa and New Mexico later.)

18 posted on 04/15/2005 2:53:30 PM PDT by Liz (One of it's most compelling tenets is Catholicism's acknowledgement of individual free will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Libloather; geedee; Jay777; Blurblogger; Just mythoughts; jer33 3; Donna Lee Nardo; NYer; ...

We need Repubs to maintain a hardline stance, even harder than they're maintaining on this issue.......and, above all, they must never surrender to political correctness.

Political correctness is the club used by the ACLU Secular Taliban and their acolytes to beat back believers----to oust religionists of every faith from claiming their rightful place in the public square.

PC needs to be quashed every place it raises it ugly head.

We need to deliver the message far and wide-----political correctness is dead, killed by a devastated culture corrupted by secularism.


19 posted on 04/15/2005 3:02:52 PM PDT by Liz (One of it's most compelling tenets is Catholicism's acknowledgement of individual free will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Being hearing this for weeks now...when are they suppose to go NUCLEAR?? This strategy should have been used long time ago, especially now against the fithy RATS and the rags for printing LIES about DeLay...

Me thinks the pubs are 4 years too late!
20 posted on 04/15/2005 3:32:26 PM PDT by RoseofTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RoseofTexas

oops..being should read BEEN! Hitting the sauce early! :)


21 posted on 04/15/2005 3:33:52 PM PDT by RoseofTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

pubbies are slow learners.

we'll see how this goes.


22 posted on 04/15/2005 3:35:05 PM PDT by ken21 ( wasn't fr supposed to be a place to discuss ideas?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

So .. I guess Frist is hoping to incite the Christians who live in the states represented by the "dozen or so repubs" who don't want to vote for the CONSTITUTIONAL solution.

After they get overwhelmed with email, faxes and letters, I suspect they may have a change of heart.

Nothing like the wrath of your constituents to set a person straight.


23 posted on 04/15/2005 3:37:21 PM PDT by CyberAnt (President Bush: "America is the greatest nation on the face of the earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

I don't care if we win or lose the actual vote. Actually I do care that we win on the constitutional option. However, what is more important to me is that a vote actually takes place and we see who's on our side and who's not. I'm giving Frist the benefit of the doubt but we need to see it happen soon. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here and scorn all Repubs, just the ones that vote against the constitutional option.


24 posted on 04/15/2005 6:13:35 PM PDT by Ravi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt

Did you watch the Brit Hume show tonight? He wasn't there, but there was a story about the filibuster hoo-ha, and it seems that there were 2 of Clintons judges that were filibustered, BUT they both got voted in---ON THE 9TH CIRCUIT---

THAT is good enough reason for Frist to do what he needs--those two are two of the most communist in the country---

Anyway, they also said that Dodd, Biden, Boxer and Kerry are busy little bees trying to find more dirt on John Bolton by Tuesday when the committee is supposed to vote.

Well, supposedly there was an incident where Bolton got a State department underling taken off one of his "portfolios" because he did something (I forget,sorry), and that guy is now a staff member of Sen. Chuck Hagel!!!

When asked about whether this would influence HIS vote, Hagel was noncommittal, and Lincoln Chafee says he is still "leaning" toward voting for Bolton---

I tell you what, if Bolton does not get through to a floor vote, Bush should not put up any judicial nominees or cabinet nominees and then on the next break make about 25 "recess appointments"---

BTW, I also saw on Fox that Sen. Craig (R) of Idaho has put a hold on one of Bushs cabinet nominees until he gets his way and gets an AMNESTY amendment added to the Supplemental Afghanistan, Iraq and tsunami funding bill---

That is 4 four, cabinet nominees that Senators have put holds on, not counting Negroponte and Bolton---

Can anyone spell B A B I E S!!!!!


25 posted on 04/15/2005 6:35:03 PM PDT by Txsleuth (Mark Levin for Supreme Court Justice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DrewsDad

Me too. It was a letter from Ken Mehlman.


26 posted on 04/15/2005 6:43:07 PM PDT by csmusaret (Urban Sprawl is an oxymoron)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth

Yes, I saw portions of it. Those 2 idiots on the 9th Circus are mostly the reason why all their cases get reversed.

I'm sure the smear team is working overtime .. And yes, I did hear about the guy who now works for Hagel. I'm hoping Hagel will be fair about this .. but I know the dems are putting a lot of pressure on the weakest repubs. I guess we'll find out next week.

As for recess appointments they can be a two-edged sword. They are only good until the next session of Congress. A lot of people cannot pull up stakes from their current position and take a recess job for a year - with no prospect of being able to stay in the position. This was the reason that Bush has already lost a really good judge.

These dems are not only babies, they are really stupid. After Frist appears at the pro-family group - and the dems get overwhelmed with email, faxes and letters, they're going to find out this attitude is not a winning number .. and 2006 is looking better and better.


27 posted on 04/15/2005 7:14:15 PM PDT by CyberAnt (President Bush: "America is the greatest nation on the face of the earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt

The worst part about Hagel is, Biden is his best friend--and I wouldn't put it past Biden to "threaten" Hagel somehow----

I know the drawbacks of the "recess appointments"---the trick would be to find enough of them that would make the sacrifice, in order to prove to the dems that if they are gonna play games, they will lose!!

Somehow, I have lost all faith in Frist to get anything done-I'm not even sure I would let him operate on me...he is just way to passive!!!


28 posted on 04/15/2005 7:19:36 PM PDT by Txsleuth (Mark Levin for Supreme Court Justice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: theDentist
Your post took the words right out of my mouth.

I'm so tired of the eunuchs at the helm of the RNC.
29 posted on 04/15/2005 7:51:02 PM PDT by PRO 1 (POX on posters who's political bent causes them to refuse to be confused by the FACTS!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

They're just trying to buy back some political capitol from the people. When all is said and done, we will be worse off than we are now.


30 posted on 04/15/2005 7:59:34 PM PDT by philetus (What goes around comes around)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Txsleuth

Well .. please hang on a little longer .. Frist may surprise you yet .. we just have to stop comparing him to the "Hammer".


31 posted on 04/15/2005 11:39:04 PM PDT by CyberAnt (President Bush: "America is the greatest nation on the face of the earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Soul Seeker

I'm reading these threads and I still don't understand. So it is needed 60 votes, and reps only have 55. But can the reps still do it?. I mean, even if the 60 votes are not reached, can President Bush still put whoever he wants?.


32 posted on 04/15/2005 11:58:58 PM PDT by angelanddevil2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Asides from calling any and all Congress critters about this, are there any groups or movements which I can join to help stop the Democratic from blocking qualified judges from getting a vote?


33 posted on 04/16/2005 4:23:44 AM PDT by Edit35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
I hope what you will see over the next several weeks is us to do a better job.

That'll be the day.

34 posted on 04/16/2005 4:27:08 AM PDT by Rome2000 (Peace is not an option)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz
We need Repubs to maintain a hardline stance, even harder than they're maintaining on this issue.......and, above all, they must never surrender to political correctness.

Unlike Chrissy Shays and Johnny McCain, as well as a few others!!!!
35 posted on 04/16/2005 5:55:34 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: angelanddevil2

Constitutionally only 51 votes are needed for Judicial appointments. The role of Congress is to advise and consent, no more. The Dems have decided to employ a quasi filibuster that necessitates 60 ayes before a vote can even be taken on the Senate floor for these judges. If a vote were allowed, they'd easily have the necessary 51 votes. In essence requiring a supermajority to bring a nominee to the floor where none is constitutionally required.

There is some side argument among scholars about whether the President even needs the Congress to vote to appoint a judge, but the central argument being conducted now centers on removing this supermajority impediment being exercised.

As it stands so long as the Dems remain obstructionists, his judges remain in limbo without a vote unless the rule is changed to 51 ayes to allow that vote.

The "Constitutional" option is simply to change the number needed to break a filibuster over judges to a simple majority. 51 Votes. If they did that, 51 ayes would allow a nominee to be voted on. From that point only 51 are needed to confirm the judge. Which they have.

There is doubt whether the Reps have 51 people brave enough to make this rule change.

IMO, whether they do or not doesn't matter. They should force the vote and have these senators commit to record where they stand on Judicial appointments. Several of these people are Senators that face difficult re-elections, and their constituents are very likely to respond the same way they did to daschle if they vote the wrong way on this issue.


36 posted on 04/16/2005 7:09:12 PM PDT by Soul Seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Liz

Just getting this. You certainly have the gift of proclaiming the truth. Indeed we must stand firm.


37 posted on 04/17/2005 4:18:33 PM PDT by jer33 3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jer33 3


Thanks for posting. This needed to be bumped.


38 posted on 04/17/2005 5:07:55 PM PDT by Liz (One of it's most compelling tenets is Catholicism's acknowledgement of individual free will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson