Republicans to Go on Offensive Over Judges

Yahoo News ^ | 4/15/05 | JESSE J. HOLLAND

[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.

[Libloather]

It's about time to bus a move...

[Cowboy Bob]

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

[So Cal Rocket]

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.

[jveritas]

Great news.

[goodnesswins]

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

[matymac]

I'll believe it when I see it...Haven't we heard this before...?

[Rummyfan]

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!

[DrewsDad]

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

[theDentist]

"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.

[Obadiah]

"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?

[princess leah]

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!

[Soul Seeker]

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.

[OESY]

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

[jonno]

bump

[Tiger Smack]

Ill believe it when I see it

[Saundra Duffy]

Whatever happened to Miguel Estrada?

[Deo et Patria]

I had a dream last night about the gift that I hope we give to the Senate libs, as a gesture of "comity":

[Liz]

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.)

[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.

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.

[RoseofTexas]

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!