[ken5050]

No way Hagel goes off the reservation. He can't be that stupid..

[Sacajaweau]

I think you're right on them getting more than 60 votes anyways. I think a lot of Dems know they have to change their stand on abortion and other moral issues to get re-elected and I think the Dem platform, with the lead that Hillary has taken, will become very tricky on the matters of morality. Kerry's flip flop will be nothing compared to it.

[brooklyn dave]

You really don't think Voinovich will vote against Frist? He already has a reputation now that he should suffer for unless he does something fantastic to redeem himself.

[thoughtomator]

Any Senator that doesn't side with the GOP on this one needs to be ejected from the party, even if it costs the majority. If you can't side with your own party on such a defining vote, you have no business being a member of that party.

[Paradox]

What exactly will the vote be on? Ending filibusters in general, or just for judicial nominations, whats the wording of the resolution or whatever that they would be voting on.

[Eagle of Liberty]

Got an email yesterday from ACLJ - Jay Sekulow that Dewine might jump ship.

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

The question is mute, he won't, and even if he did, the RINO's would kill it.

[Bar-Face]

I think there is a 6th RINO that everyone has forgotten and probably WILL vote with the Democrats. Trent Lott (RINO MS)! Lott is still pi$$ed about being dumped as Majority Leader and I do not think he is going to run for reelection next year. I heard him in an interview last week state that he did not have to answer to any Republican after the way they treated him. I really believe he will vote against changing the rule, if for no other reason than to rub the Republican "Leadership's" nose in it. And you all know what "it" is,

[Final Authority]

There are three things happening right now in Washington. The base closing list. The vote to end filibusters for judges, and GWBs pet legislative projects, vis a vis, social security (propping up the stock market as the Boomers begin to take money out for retirement) and criminal alien amnesty.

Did you see where the big base closings are planned? In Maine, NH, CT, (which impacts RI). In those states alone there are four Senators who were equivocating on the fillibuster vote. GWB needs the filibuster vote to keep the Southern caucus on his side for the SS vote and the amnesty vote. He can only do that if he gets some conservative Bible reading judges.

So to answer your question, the vote will take place when the four Senators are convinced to vote the right way on the judge issue. Oh, BTW, GWB will reject the base closing plan afterwards, if he gets his privatization and amnesty plans in place.

[b4its2late]

I really can't understand why these guys don't get it. But that's just me.

[El Gran Salseron]

The real question is, "When is Frist going to cave?"

[sirthomasthemore]

From prior post:

1. Bring up Justice Brown, first.

2. If Dems filibuster, make them filibuster 24/7.

3. Cite their racism at every opportunity.

4. Target and roast vulnerable DEMS with heavy Black constituencies.

5. Ultimately, GOP will have enough DEMS for cloture- if not, then move the nuclear option.

[Scythian]

There will be no vote.

The democrats still rule even though they are the minority.

The United States is a ship heading for the rocks.

Her greatest enemy lies within.

The President has failed to protect the border and therefore the nation.

It will continue to get worse until destruction.

[Phantom Lord]

When will Frist trigger the vote? Never.

What will the vote be? There won't be a vote.

[Libloather]

GOP Showcases Two Controversial Judges
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
18 minutes ago

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist poses for pictures on Capitol Hill Tuesday, May 17, 2005, with judicial nominees Janice Rogers Brown, center, and Pricilla Owen. The Senate's top leaders have ended their attempt to find a compromise on President Bush's stalled judicial nominees, but other members continued to work on a possible deal to clear five blocked appeals court appointees and end threats to change the long-standing filibuster rules. (AP Photo/Dennis Cook)

WASHINGTON - Senate Republicans on Tuesday picked Texas judge Priscilla Owen to be the flashpoint of a historic battle over the powers of the White House and minority parties in the Senate to shape the federal judiciary, with the vote expected to occur next week.

A small group of moderate senators worked furiously behind the scenes to head off what's been dubbed the "nuclear option" because of its potential for escalating parliamentary warfare between Democrats and Republicans that could stall President Bush's legislative agenda.

Republicans announced that Owen's nomination for an appeals court seat will be the vehicle for the attempt to prohibit Democrats from blocking Bush's nominees through filibuster threats that require 60 votes in the 100-member Senate to overcome shortly after she and another stalled nominee, California judge Janice Rogers Brown, met with the president at the White House and later with Senate GOP leaders at the Capitol.

Owen and Brown did not speak to the media at either location, though they appeared at a photo shoot with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

The meetings came a day before Frist planned to bring Owen's nomination back to the Senate floor for confirmation. Republican aides said that a test vote on her nomination to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans was expected early next week.

If that vote is not successful, then Frist plans to call a vote on banning judicial filibusters, aides said.

Frist insists that all judicial nominees deserve confirmation votes. "I've made it clear what the principle is, a fair up-or-down vote," he said.

But Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada has refused to give up Democrats' ability to block Supreme Court and lower court nominees they consider too extreme. Court watchers think a Supreme Court vacancy could happen sometime this year.

"The goal of the Republican leadership and their allies in the White House is to pave the way for a Supreme Court nominee who would only need 50 votes for confirmation rather than 60," the number of senators needed to maintain a filibuster, Reid said.

Democrats have prevented final votes on 10 of Bush's first-term appeals court nominees, and have threatened to do the same this year to seven the president renominated, including Brown and Owen. Frist has threatened to try to block the Democrats' use of the filibuster, a parliamentary device that can be overcome only by a majority of 60 votes or higher.

It requires only 51 votes to approve a nominee once a vote is called in the 100-member Senate. Likewise, Frist could prevail with 51 votes supporting his move to rule filibusters out-of-order when used to block a confirmation vote.

Neither side appears certain it has enough votes to prevail if the issue is put to a test.

The White House tried to have it both ways on Tuesday — letting it be known that Owen and Brown were spending much of the day there at the same time the administration was insisting it was remaining hands-off as Senate leaders decided how to proceed.

"We've always stayed out of Senate procedural or congressional procedural matters," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

While Owen and Brown shuttled between the White House and the Capitol, a small cadre of senators worked to avoid a showdown over nominations.

A small group of Democrats have floated a proposal to clear the way for confirmation of some of Bush's blocked appointees. If enough Republicans and Democrats agreed to a compromise of their own, they might be able to impose it on the leadership if necessary.

Under the deal, Republicans would have to pledge no change through 2006 in the Senate's rules that allow filibusters against judicial nominees. For their part, Democrats would commit not to block votes on Bush's Supreme Court or appeals court nominees during the same period, except in extreme circumstances.

Each member would be free to determine what constituted an extreme circumstance, but Republicans would bind themselves to not changing the filibuster rule for the next two years.

Some Republicans have balked at that language, saying it is not equitable.