Senate Committee Passes 'Nuclear Option' Filibuster Rule

CNSNews.com ^ | 6/24/03 | Jeff Johnson

[votelife]

Pickering had not been brought up in the Judiciary Committee. Someone else posted part of Rove's strategy was to wait on Pickering...

[okie01]

"I think this is a Constitutional matter.. Send it to the SC and hope they don't urinate on it."

It is very unlikely that SCOTUS would even agree to hear a case that involves a procedural matter in the co-equal legislative arm.

This is a Senate problem. It is up to the Senate to solve it.

[HatSteel]

I agree. It is a constitutional issue.

If they make the constitutional issue that the Senate MUST NOT be bound by the rules of the old Senate when making new rules, then the 2/3 cloture must die. Why? Because ONLY under the old rules does the vote to change that particular rule get bogged down. That makes the cloture rule -- because it is forced on each new Senate -- have the force of an amendment to the constitution. There is only one way to amend the constitution and that is not it.

[No Truce With Kings]

"Anyone else think that this change will just bite us in the ass when it comes time for us to filibuster liberal judges?"

N-O.

A filibuster is an inappropriate weapon to use for appointments. The Constitution calls upon the Senate to advise and consent to the President's appointees. A filibuster of a vote on a judge prevents the Senate from carrying out this responsibility.

Note that the Senate has no Constitutional mandate to *pass* laws -- it can but lawmaking is optional. That is why a filibuster passes Constitution muster on statutes. But ultimately, the Senate *must* take a vote on appointments coming out of committee or they are derelict in their duty of advise and consent.

Since it is only Democrats that feel no impunity in violating the Constitution (anyone catch Gephardt's crack about using Executive Orders to override the Supreme Court?) this cannot hurt Republicans.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[Dog Gone]

Even though it only takes 51 votes - did Frist already know he had 51 votes before they did this ...??

Without a doubt. Most bills die in the Senate, but the ones orchestrated by the leadership will almost invariably pass.

There isn't any way that Frist would have started this unless he knew how it would end.

[MeekOneGOP]

Good job sniffin' this article out, Kat !

[votelife]

maybe all of the delay on this was to secure RINO passage before it was brought up

[Dog Gone]

It is very unlikely that SCOTUS would even agree to hear a case that involves a procedural matter in the co-equal legislative arm.

And if it did, the Senate would be surrendering constitutional authority if they paid any attention to it at all. For the sake of the Constitution, they should publicly denounce and defy it.

[Dog Gone]

I think the delay was because of the war. This will be a public relations battle, and not only do the Republicans have to win, they have to win with the approval of the public.

That requires the public's attention.

[potlatch]

Thanks for the ping, M&M.
"It is a very irresponsible and dangerous path to take," Daschle said,

OH please... everytime he opens his mouth, he's irresponsible! We need to do something to force the issue instead of letting them run all over us!!

[Allen In Texas Hill Country]

As I understand some previous articles this is not 'the' nuclear option. The one I'm thinking about talked about changing the floor rules and having the Senate something or other (?) makes a ruling. Then with a simple majority the Senate can override Senate whathes called and proceed to vote on judges with a simple majority.

But the repubos are afraid of it because the demos threaten to stop all business if the repubos use this method. Thats all I can remember.

[Sacajaweau]

I think the Dems want the REPUBS to do the dirty work and do away with the filibustering on Judicial nominees. For the Dems, it means they did everything they could for their "sheep". One of those "don't blame us". Surely the Dems don't want to be filibustered in the future.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Good one!! LOL!!!

[JSteff]

The problem is we never filibuster liberal judges. Our side makes a few profound statements then the judges pass(ed) anyway.

[ambrose]

I do. Don't mess with longstanding rules. Use them. FORCE THE RATS TO ACTUALLY SIT ON THE FLOOR AND DEBATE.

[MissAmericanPie]

Isn't there some organization of ranchers/farmers/property owners that band together and pool their resources to fight this corrupt government? I guess it doesn't matter to anyone until it's their ox being gored.

[hocndoc]

thanks for the ping

[CyberAnt]

Okay - that's good!

[PhilDragoo]

"It is a very irresponsible and dangerous path to take,"

"and I would hope that [Republicans] would recognize the precarious circumstances
under which that would be offered and would decide not to."