Democrats are mull possible filibuster against Supreme Court nominee [Barbara Boxer says the option]

WIStv ^

[Sub-Driver]

Democrats are mull possible filibuster against Supreme Court nominee (Washington-AP) November 1, 2005 - Some Senate Democrats are talking about a filibuster against Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. California's Barbara Boxer says the option is "on the table," because of concerns about Alito's conservative views.

Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat in the chamber, is more cautious. He tells "The Early Show" on CBS, "We shouldn't rush to judgment." He wants to see what happens during the confirmation process.

Ohio Senator Mike DeWine, one of the so-called "Gang of 14"

[OpusatFR]

Who is advising them!!?

Keep it up....

[vox humana]

MULL: To flavor a beverage by heating it with various ingredients such as herbs, spices, fruit and sugar. The beverages most often infused in this fashion are wine, cider and beer.

Works for me!

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

Mull (Muell) in German means garbage, rubbish, refuse.

[Blue Turtle]

So conservative views are wrong and cause for a filibuster? wow, when did this become acceptable ?

[Bigh4u2]

For Democrats, wouldn't that be Whine?

[cotton1706]

heheheh, perhaps we could get Barbara on board in favor of expedited hearings. No point in prolonging the inevitable since they know so much already.

[savedbygrace]

The constitutional option (also called the nuclear option) ultimately only requires 51 votes on the floor of the Senate to break the filibustering of judicial nominees.

We can lose five RINO votes and still break the judicial filibuster.

This is what the Dims are facing if they invoke a filibuster. 51 votes (including VP Cheney, if needed) and they lose the filibuster hammer from now on (until they figure out a way to change it back should they ever be in the majority again).

[Iconoclast2]

Of course, we can't count on Specter at all.

[Bar-Face]

"there are certainly not 41 liberal Democrats in the house who would keep the filibuster going"

Wanna bet? There are 45 Democrats in the Senate that act and vote as they are told. The only occasional defection is OKed by their leadership for political reasons.

[Nervous Tick]

until they figure out a way to change it back should they ever be in the majority again

If Heaven forbid they ever get the majority again... they will have no reason to change it back.

[ElPatriota]

...Of course, we can't count on Specter at all...

Unfortunately this is true... which makes me wonder why did Frist let this guy keep the chair?.... sorry but Frits is d"cooked and well done." He looks so weack to me. Am I wrong people? :)

[JohnnyZ]

There are 45 Democrats in the Senate that act and vote as they are told.

There are 44 Democrats in the Senate total.

[rwa265]

"There are 44 Democrats in the Senate total."

That's only if you go along with the fiction that jumpin jim is an independent.

[JohnnyZ]

That's only if you go along with the fiction that jumpin jim is an independent.

The whole post was fiction; I strive for consistency.

[savedbygrace]

Not exactly. Majority parties tend to lose some ability to stay together in lockstep. They wouldn't be able to guarantee 51 votes to oppose a Republican President's judicial picks, so they might want to get the filibuster option back again.

This is all supposition. I suspect the Dims will not filibuster. The Gang of 14 agreement expires in 2007, and they might want to retain the option for the following two years, just in case.

This nominee does not bring a sea change to the USSC. Yes, he provides a one vote change in the balance, but one more strict constructionist vote doesn't guarantee any future decisions at this point. One more after that will, and that added vote could be the replacement for Ginsburg or Stevens.

[GSWarrior]

All your mull belong to us.

[rwfromkansas]

Well, I think this nominee is more important than you indicate.

One more vote means we WIN all 5-4 cases that would have gone the other way in our favor. There are many such cases, including ones on issues like school prayer etc.

Yes, we still need ONE more person to go and be replaced by a conservative to get a consistently conservative court, but now it should already be much better than when O'Connor was there.

[rwfromkansas]

Spector promised he would vote with us.

[ElPatriota]

When? Where did he say this?... I would be surprised if he said anything like that so soon in the game. If he did, that would be excellent news, big news.

[savedbygrace]

One more vote means we WIN all 5-4 cases that would have gone the other way in our favor.

I disagree with that statement. One more vote does not mean that is an automatic outcome. USSC decisions are give and take, back and forth affairs, and justices are influenced by other justices before they cast their final votes. Weak justives are subject to more influence than strong justices, like Thomas. I agree it's a good thing we are gaining one more strict contructionist vote on the Court, but I disagree that this guarantees any outcomes. And I remain convinced the Dims will not filibuster, unless some dramatic news release happens before the floor vote that changes the equation.