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

"Null" describes the dems. perfectly. To be updated to read "Void". Straight down their pantslegs, when the Nuclear Option button is pushed.

During the fight over his committee chairmanship he promised he would support the nuclear option if it came up.

He has praised Alito in previous years as well.

ok... that sounds about right..Scalito is in. However, I get the sense, the Rats already threw the towel on this one... They are focusing on bringing Bush down...that is what yesterday's little production was all about. And let me tell you... the Left media - MSM - is on board!... Sometimes it seems as if they all received their talking points straight from the Rats...

I forgot about JJ; I thought McCain might be the 45th.

I don't get your point. I was just pointing out that the Democrats were doing garbage, refuse, rubbish when considering a filibuster. And you attack me for justifying a Dim fillibuster? How is calling their plans garbage a defense of the Dims' plans? I don't get it.

I believe he's a member of the McCain Party.

I think what makes Fritz weak is the fact that the Dims and Rino's make the Reps the minority on many issues.

LOL

I tell Boxer, "bring it on!"

If the Dems want to go down in a stinging defeat in '06 then go ahead and "make our day!"

Right. What did Rush say? "When he achieves orgasn he screams out 'John!'".

Spector promised he would vote with us.

AFAIK, he's been non-commital, and tends to be AGAINST the nuclear option.

Still, he's [Specter] hopeful that Mr. Bush's filibustered judicial nominees can be confirmed without employing the "nuclear option."
Mr. Specter said he's studied the filibustered nominees and thinks he can find ways to pick up Democrats on them.
He will begin with Department of Interior Solicitor William G. Myers, nominated to the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, for whom he said he can get support from Democratic Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and Charles E. Schumer of New York.
Specter wary of 'nuclear option' | February 08, 2005

Myers is out of Committee, and has been on the Senate's Executive Calendar since March of this year.

How come no debate and no confirmation vote? Has Specter decided that Myers is no longer important, now that Myers is out of Committee? Does he consider his job complete in this regard?

Undecided Republicans Are Big Unknown
By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 28, 2005; Page A04
Frist can lose only five Republicans, and three appear almost surely gone. Sens. Lincoln D. Chafee (R.I.), John McCain (Ariz.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) have condemned the proposed rule change so sternly that party leaders assume they will side with Democrats. Many Republicans also expect to lose Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), although she remains publicly uncommitted. Collins "believes that the filibuster has been overused but would like to see the situation resolved through negotiation rather than a rule change," her office said yesterday.
If Collins, Chafee, McCain and Snowe oppose the change, then Frist could suffer only one more GOP defection. Speculation hangs most heavily on Sens. John W. Warner (Va.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Arlen Specter (Pa.), all of whom say they are undecided.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/27/AR2005042702088.html
[Senator SPECTER] It is my personal view that the option of a filibuster for extraordinary, egregious circumstances ought to be retained [I have elsewehre noted that this might be gauged as a Judge that the Senator would entertain impeaching, if seated] , but not in the context of the way it has been used in the immediate past, as a pattern of delay that is directed at getting even or getting back. ...
The Presiding Officer sits in the Vice President's chair by designation, and the clock above him ticks. It has the feel of a Hollywood stage. We are set for a countdown, where second by second, the hours and minutes go by as we come to the critical votes, the first of which will be the cloture vote on Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen. And what may follow, when the count reaches zero, when the roll is called--if it is to be called--is a vote on the constitutional or nuclear option. It is still my hope we will avoid that vote.
Either way the vote comes out, it will be harmful to the Senate. If the option is rejected, it will embolden the Democrats, as well as whichever may be the minority party at any time in the future. It will embolden the minority party to recklessly use the filibuster, as I think it has been used in the 108th Congress. It may embolden the minority party further to filibuster nominees like John Bolton, whose nomination for U.N. ambassador is very much in doubt. If the option is passed, it will embolden the appointers into having greater latitude on the nominees who may be submitted.
When you deal with the doctrine of separation of powers, there is a well-established principle that to have a little play in the joints is a good thing, where it is uncertain as to how a vote will turn out. And I think at this reading, it remains uncertain how a vote on the constitutional or nuclear option will turn out. There is a greater chance for compromise.
In an earlier floor statement, I analogized our controversy here to the controversy between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the Cold War. I have seen some of my colleagues pick up on that analogy. If there is any certainty in our troubled world--if the United States and the Soviet Union could avoid a nuclear confrontation on mutually assured destruction--so should the Senate.
Mash here -> 109th Congress - Senate - May 20, 2005
Navigate to: 7 . EXECUTIVE SESSION (Page S5565)

I find Specter's, "If the option is passed, it will embolden the appointers into having greater latitude on the nominees who may be submitted." to be particularly troubling. He is asserting that the Senate has the right, under the Constitution, to circumsrcibe a President's choice of nominees under the perceived threat of filibuster - under the proposition that an obstructionist minority has the right to exert poser over the President.

Specter is part of the problem here. A big part of the problem.

During the fight over his committee chairmanship he promised he would support the nuclear option if it came up.

I'm still looking ...

Maybe you have a citation handy that substantiates your recollection.

By Helen Dewar
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 19, 2004; Page A06
Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously endorsed Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) as the committee's new chairman yesterday, overriding complaints from conservative activists that he might try to block antiabortion nominees to the Supreme Court.
Specter got his colleagues' blessing after he drafted a statement -- and strengthened it during negotiations with GOP leaders and committee Republicans -- pledging prompt hearings and votes on President Bush's judicial nominees. He also vowed to try to curtail Democratic filibusters against judicial choices and held the door open to the possibility of a rule change to ban such filibusters, although he did not endorse it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60964-2004Nov18.html
November 18th, 2004
SENATOR SPECTER'S STATEMENT ON THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Washington, D.C. - Senator Specter gave the following statement today on the Senate Judiciary Committee:
I have not and would not use a litmus test to deny confirmation to pro-life nominees. I voted to confirm Chief Justice Rehnquist after he had voted against Roe v. Wade. Similarly, I voted to confirm pro-life nominees, Justice Scalia, Justice O'Connor and Justice Kennedy. I lead the successful fight to confirm Justice Thomas which almost cost me my Senate seat in 1992.
I have assured the President that I would give his nominees quick Committee hearings and early Committee votes so floor action could be promptly scheduled. I have voted for all of President Bush's judicial nominees in Committee and on the floor, and I have no reason to believe that I'll be unable to support any individual President Bush finds worthy of nomination. I believe I can help the President get his nominees approved just as I did on confirmation of two controversial Pennsylvania Circuit nominees when other, similarly situated Circuit nominees, were being filibustered.
I have already registered my opposition to the Democrats' filibusters with 17 floor statements and will use my best efforts to stop any future filibusters. It is my hope and expectation that we can avoid future filibusters and judicial gridlock with a 55-45 Republican majority and election results demonstrating voter dissatisfaction with Democratic filibusters. If a rule change is necessary to avoid filibusters, there are relevant recent precedents to secure rule changes with 51 votes. [Yes there are. And this statement of fact does not illuminate Senator Specter's possible stance if push comes to shove]
I intend to consult with my colleagues on the Committee's legislative agenda, including tort reform, and will have balanced hearings with all viewpoints represented. I have long objected to the tactic used of bottling up civil rights legislation in the Judiciary Committee when it should have gone to the floor for an up or down vote. Accordingly, I would not support Committee action to bottle up legislation or a constitutional amendment, even one which I personally opposed, reserving my own position for the floor.
SENATOR SPECTER'S STATEMENT ON THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Well, the thing is, Frist (Fritz? - which is it :)... is a heck of the Doctor! Why is he wasting his time in politics?... And perhaps because he is a Doctor, his training is what makes him "too nice" for politics.

In contrast :) look a Reid!... there is a dirty, underhanded basta** :) - You better don't turn your back when this guy is around

SD freepers need to turn the heat up on Tim Johnson, who was making filibuster noises yesterday to toe the party line.

Turn the heat up on Timmy.

Tell him he doesn't want to go the way of Tommy.

Thu Nov 18, 5:04 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, a Republican defender of abortion rights, effectively won his battle on Thursday for the chairmanship of the committee that reviews judicial nominees.
Fellow Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, some of whom earlier voiced concerns about him, stood by Specter as he vowed to help win Senate confirmation for President Bush's judicial candidates.
"I have assured the president that I would give his nominees quick committee hearings and early committee votes so (Senate) floor action could be promptly scheduled," Specter, of Pennsylvania, said in a statement at a news conference.
Specter wrote the statement with input from Republicans after an earlier draft was rejected as inadequate, a Senate aide said.
"Members wanted a stronger statement and got it," the aide said. Consequently, Specter's nine fellow Republicans on the Judiciary Committee came out in support of him succeeding Orrin Hatch of Utah as the panel's chair when the new 109th Congress convenes in January.
"We are unanimously in favor of Senator Arlen Specter and will vote that way come January," said Hatch, who must step down because of Republican term limits on chairmanships.
"As far as I am concerned, this settles the issue," said Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican on the Judiciary Committee.
While anti-abortion rights groups have long had concerns about Specter, opposition mounted after the Nov. 2 election when he made what was seen as a warning to Bush not to offer Supreme Court nominees who opposed abortion rights.
Specter has said he was merely pointing out that nominees would need bipartisan support to clear Democratic procedural hurdles. He has also noted he had backed all of Bush's judicial nominees so far.
http://blog.thorg.com/archives/2004_11.html

What about Saad, Haynes, Kavanaugh and Neilson? They have been in Specter's Committee since February. Arlen even keeps a list so you can check his speedy hearings for yourself ... http://judiciary.senate.gov/noms/109.pdf

In addition to the four nominations for Circuit Courts of Appeal, there are a handful of District Court nominations languishing in Committee since February.

Lieberman said Roberts was "a mainstream nominee. But because of the focus on the balance on the court and Justice O'Connor being a mainstream conservative, if the next nominee is not a mainstream conservative, then a filibuster is definitely possible."
Lieberman was one of 14 Democratic and Republican senators who signed a May 23 accord in which they pledged to not support a filibuster of a judicial nominee unless there were "extraordinary circumstances" which made it impossible to approve the nominee. ...
Another Democrat, Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., said Wednesday that he would vote for Roberts but intended that vote "to be a signal to the president that I'm prepared to cast votes for Republican nominees if they are in the jurisprudential mainstream. There is no need for him to have to go to an extreme candidate." ...
Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., one of the seven Democrats who signed the May 23 no-filibuster pledge, noted Wednesday, "I voted against Priscilla Owen (as a judge on the appeals court for the Fifth Circuit). I felt and still believe that she was a judicial activist. Having said that, I don't know that it (an Owen nomination to the high court) triggers a filibuster, but what I can say is she would be a very controversial nominee."
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9428796/
But some Democrats were contemplating just such a move as the 55-year-old Alito began courting senators on the second day of his Supreme Court candidacy. Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota refused to rule out supporting a filibuster.
"I would leave all those options on the table," he said.
Johnson said he hasn't made up his mind on Alito after discussing the right to privacy and other constitutional issues with him Tuesday. "Not surprisingly, it's hard to draw hard and fast conclusions on how he will vote," Johnson said. "There is no question he is a conservative."
http://www.insidebayarea.com/dailyreview/news/ci_3174451

Notice how "extraordinary circumstances" is morphing into "mainstream conservative."

Lieberman's logic is, "If not mainstream conservative, then extraordinary circumstances."

But notice Ben Nelson of Nebraska. He would not hold that Owen (previously held up by cloture abuse), while even being considered a "judicial activist" in his mind, constitutes crossing the line into "extraordinary circumstances."

Oh, man, I can't believe I wrote Fritz. Been thinking too much about the special prosecutor. You are correct, it's Frist.

SD freepers need to turn the heat up on Tim Johnson, who was making filibuster noises yesterday to toe the party line.

I am trying to... but his server is probably very 'busy' :)

Keep up Freepers

I need help from freepers.

A California Congresswoman (Boxer?) made remarks about not only a woman's right to choose, but a woman's right to change her mind 30 days after giving birth. And she wasn't talking about adoption after the baby was born.

Does anyone has information on that?