Free Republic

It's good to see the modern Left still maintains the intellectual dexterity it exhibited when it hewed to the ever-changing Stalinist party line in the 1930s. On MSNBC's The Ed Show, Nation magazine editor Katrina vanden Heuvel took the bold position that Senate Democrats must "bust the filibuster," ending the right of the minority party to stall important legislation -- a position totally at odds with that of...Katrina vanden Heuvel. Katrina told Ed: We need the president to take a stand that is bold, honest, courageous, clear, forceful, unequivocal, to tell those senators on the Democratic side they have...

Sorry for the vanity, but I have been curious about this. If a health-care plan goes down in flames before the entire senate or is filibustered, can they keep bringing it back again and again in various forms? I'm sure I won't like the answer.

And not on confirmations, either, but on legislation. Peter Orszag, Barack Obama’s budget director, says the White House won’t take off the table an option to push through its legislative agenda using the “reconciliation” process. It would keep Republicans from stopping bills on taxes, budgets, and global warming: The White House budget director said Tuesday that the Obama administration may take advantage of a rarely used congressional rule that would strip Republicans of their filibuster power to get some controversial proposals through the Senate by simple majorities. Peter Orszag told reporters that the White House would prefer not to use...

"Once the tool of Southern segregationists, unending debate has become as acceptable as it is undemocratic."

Pity poor Harry Reid. Was anyone ever as inept with rhetoric forced into a position of national leadership? The same man who called George Bush a “loser” and Alan Greenspan a “hack” — the same man who tried surrendering to al-Qaeda from the Senate floor — has now compared Senate cloture motions to aggravated assaults by stabbing: Reid and Democrats have pointed to the 72 cloture motions — which cut off debate and require 60 votes — as “filibusters.” Republicans say these are not true filibusters, since many of the motions pass overwhelmingly.Nonetheless, Reid says Republican contentions that they’ve only...

The book by Wittes has lots of other interesting stuff in it. He urges that the President and Chief Justice team up in order to put an end to nominees testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee. I don't feel very strongly one way or the other on that question. The most objectionable aspect of such testimony is when Senators seek to extract concessions, promises, or predictions about how a nominee will rule in future cases. If the courts continue to throw off the shackles and logic of the Constitution, and instead act as super-legislators, then it would make some sense...

On Tuesday, the GOP primary in Rhode Island pits Sen. Lincoln Chafee against Cranston Mayor Stephen Laffey. Whatever else may be said about Chafee, he has been a very reliable vote against obstructionist filibusters of judicial nominees. He's voted for cloture all 25 times (see details below the fold). According to Rasmussen, Chafee has pulled to within two points of Democratic challenger Sheldon Whitehouse in his bid for re-election (i.e. 44% for Whitehouse and 42% for Chafee). Whitehouse previously had a six point lead. But Chafee must first face off against Laffey, on Tuesday. Rasmussen has Whitehouse leading Laffey 58%...

"Is it asking too much that the President’s nominees for lifetime appointments to the federal courts at least get the support of 60 of 100 senators?" - Sen. Joe Lieberman on ABC’s This Week, on Sunday, May 22, 2005 "These last-minute efforts using procedural maneuvers ... has been the wrong way of going about it." - Sen. Barack Obama on ABC’s This Week, on Sunday, Jan 29, 2006 Senate Democrats just can’t understand why Republicans object to judicial filibusters requiring 60 votes to approve President Bush’s nominees. They have controlled the Senate for so many decades they find it impossible...

We are prepared to release one or two flyers the day or two after President Bush announces his Supreme Court nominee. If you would like to be added to our ping list for flyer distribution, please let us know. Here is the list of flyers distributed by you and others to 10,000s of homes during 2004. Flyers

Opponents of President Bush have said they will use every tool in their arsenal, including the filibuster and other stalling tactics, to block any Supreme Court nominee who does not meet certain litmus tests. Eighty nine days from today, on October 3rd, the Supreme Court is scheduled to start the 2005- 2006 term. The three months between now and then is plenty of time for the U.S. Senate to debate and vote on a candidate once the President makes a nomination. If the Senate truly has respect for both the law and for tradition it should work through the summer...

If there’s one Republican I see a benefit for after the filibuster compromise, it is George Allen. Allen has spoken forcefully on the issue, and beat Frist to the punch in calling for a vote on filibusters sooner rather than later. Though Allen was not seen as one of the major players on this issue, he has also been an unusually strong advocate for confirming John Bolton without delay. There is a growing sentiment from Beltway Buzz readers and many in the conservative movement that Allen is showing more leadership qualities in the Senate than the actual Majority Leader. Like...

WASHINGTON - In a dramatic reach across party lines, Senate centrists sealed a compromise Monday night to clear the way for confirmation of many of President Bush's stalled judicial nominees, leave others in limbo and preserve venerable filibuster rules. "In a Senate that has become increasingly partisan and polarized, the bipartisan center held," said Sen. Joseph Lieberman (news, bio, voting record), D-Conn., one of 14 senators _seven from each party — to pledge their "mutual trust and confidence" on the deal. "The Senate is back in business," exulted Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), R-S.C., reflecting the view that...

The debate about filibusters has narrowed to a single proposition — that Republicans, eager to push through George W. Bush’s nominees to the federal bench, have decided to change the rules of the Senate, and thus change the terms under which the august body does its business. This claim casts Republicans as bad losers who face defeat not with equanimity and courage, but by whining and changing the rules. Most public-opinion polls frame the issue in precisely this way, and predictably invite the public to take a dim view of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s attempt to clarify the proper...

Sen. George Allen, Virginia Republican, said yesterday that he doesn't think a compromise can be reached with Senate Democrats and predicted his party has the 51 votes needed to employ the so-called "nuclear option" that will prevent the filibustering of judicial nominees. "I just think that it is not that big of a deal for senators to exercise their constitutional responsibility," Mr. Allen said on ABC's "This Week." "I think that we'll get the constitutional option done, and we'll vote on judges." Also yesterday, Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, answered "yes" when asked on CBS' "Face the Nation"...

Since when does a nation get its undies in a bunch over filibustering judges and cranky diplomats? This is the best part (for me, and apparently millions of others) of the success and the emergence of new media. Now, my opinion is Rush Limbaugh gets the lions share of credit for this. His show blazed the trail for Fox News, Free Republic, The Weekly Standard, Real Clear Politics, Sean Hannity, Lucianne.com, etc... Rush made politics cool-- especially conservative politics and he did this post Watergate, Viet Nam and Reagan! The Old Media was in its prime and loaded for bear....

Vitter WASHINGTON -- The national debate about President Bush's judicial nominations spilled into Louisiana on Thursday when one of the state's U.S. senators boldly challenged another on the Senate floor. In an unusual move, freshman U.S. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., used his floor speech to call on senior colleague Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., to support Bush nominations and end filibusters blocking seven judges. One of the nominees is Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, to the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which handles federal court appeals from Louisiana. Democrats have blocked Owen's nomination four times since 2001. "We have...

Sometimes things are not as they appear peering through the legislative looking glass. Congress increasingly has an "Alice in Wonderland" feel to it, where statements by lawmakers and activists create a strange dissonance and legislative reality that is out of sync with political rhetoric. Yet because their press releases represent the authorized voice of the opposition, Democratic Party leaders' idiom has an aura of validity — however phony. There is a method to the madness. Democrats are laying political sod, preparing the ground for the 2006 congressional elections. Call it "project overreach"; like many aspects of the Democratic Party these...

Closed-Door Judicial Talks Resume Thursday, May 19, 2005 WASHINGTON — Over a dozen moderate lawmakers were scheduled to resume behind-the-scenes talks Thursday to head off a Senate showdown over judicial filibusters (search), according to congressional aides. The centrist senators convened Wednesday in various offices around the Capitol complex — in Sen. John Warner's office at one point, Republican Mike DeWine's office at another — in an effort to reach a compromise. But no deal has yet been made. Democratic Sen. Ken Salazar (search) of Colorado attended at least 13 private meetings over the previous 24 hours with senators trying to...

Making an unsound argument is bad. Leaving it uncorrected is worse. Since I would prefer to be bad than worse, it’s time — for me, at least — to reconsider filibusters. Back in November, I flatly asserted that filibustering judges did not violate the constitution. My contention was that although filibusters are bad policy, this just makes them yet another of the countless unwise choices a free people may make — and for which they may hold each other accountable in the democratic process. Although I did not develop the argument (it was not central to what I was...

Democrats learned obstruction from the masters: the GOP WASHINGTON — The stakes in politics are about to get a lot higher. The partisan battles in the coming weeks — on judges, Social Security and Tom DeLay — are part of a larger struggle in which Republicans are seeking to establish themselves as the dominant party in American politics. Essential to their quest is persuading Democrats, or at least a significant number in their ranks, to accept long-term minority status. The current acrimony in politics is incomprehensible unless it is understood as the inevitable next act of a long-term struggle. Its...

If Republicans succeed in ending Democratic filibustering of President Bush's judicial nominees, Al Gore recently remarked, then "America would face the twin dangers of an economic blueprint that eliminated most all of the safeguards and protections established for middle-class families throughout the 20th century and a complete revision of the historic insulation of the rule of law from sectarian dogma." Chicken Little, meet Mr. Gore. Mr. Gore's hyperventilating aside, if judicial filibusters are busted, the Republic will undoubtedly survive -- the nation managed to endure more than 200 years without them. The art of politics today is not to compromise,...

Here is what the smarmy senator said about up or down votes when Clinton wanted judges passed.

Senate Minority Reid Harry Reid (search) has extended an olive branch of sorts to Republicans on President Bush's judicial nominees. In private talks with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Reid said he was willing to allow two of Bush's seven most contested appeals court nominees pass through the confirmation process, but only if Republicans drop threats to ban judicial filibusters (search), officials said Monday.

Will "Justice Sunday" turn out to be a political and religious mistake? I think so. The scheduled April 24 rally and national telecast, sponsored by conservative Christian groups, advertises people I respect, including James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, and Chuck Colson, the born-again Watergate figure and founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries. But the decision to hold the event is a woeful tactic based on a false premise. The premise is that Senate Democrats, by threatening to filibuster several of President Bush's judicial choices, have attacked religious believers. "Stop the filibuster against people of faith" is the slogan....

WASHINGTON — Majority Leader Bill Frist said Sunday it was not "radical" to ask senators to vote on judicial nominees as he hardened his effort to strip Democrats of their power to stall President Bush's picks for the federal court. Frist, speaking at an event organized by Christian groups trying to rally churchgoers to support an end to judicial filibusters, also said judges deserve "respect, not retaliation," no matter how they rule. A potential candidate for the White House in 2008, the Tennessee Republican made no overt mention of religion in the brief address, according to his videotaped remarks played...

MYTH-FACT: JUDICIAL FILIBUSTERS Myth: Senate Republicans Are Attempting To Abolish All Filibusters. Fact: Republicans Are Seeking To Restore The Advice And Consent Constitutional Obligations Of The Senate For Judicial Nominees ­ Not Eliminate The Legislative Filibuster ­ Even Though Democrats Have Supported In The Past Abolishing All Forms Of Filibusters. In 1995, Democrats (Bingaman, Boxer, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Lieberman, And Sarbanes) Wanted To End The Legislative Filibuster. In 1995, the only Senators on record supporting the end of the legislative filibuster were all Democrats, nine of whom are still serving in the Senate. (Karen Hosler, "Senators Vote 76-19...

Amnesia and an abundance of hot air are the order of the day in the Senate. Liberals are screaming bloody murder because Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is seeking a way to derail unprecedented judicial filibusters by Democrats. But when Democrats were nominating the judges, they sang a different tune. Senator Frist is seriously considering a measure to allow confirmation of judges on an up-or-down vote by a simple majority. The Democrats, prodded by far-left-wing groups, are resisting. Currently it takes 60 votes (three fifths of the Senate) to break any filibuster. But for over 200 years, judicial filibusters were...

When some members of Congress violate the Constitution, how can we have any confidence in their leadership? Yet that is precisely the effect these unlawful filibusters of judicial nominees are having -- undermining confidence in the Senate. Instead of voting yes or no on President Bush's picks for certain federal judgeships, Democrats are refusing to allow a vote to even take place, using a Senate rule that no motion may come to a vote while still under discussion. The filibuster, as it's called, has been used by both sides for over a century and a half to delay votes while...

This is a New York Times story. "As the Senate heads toward a showdown over the rules governing judicial confirmation, Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader has agreed to join a handful of prominent Christian conservatives in a telecast portraying Democrats as against people of faith for blocking President Bush's nominees. Flyers for the telecast, which have been organized by the Family Research Council and scheduled to originate at a Kentucky Mega Church on the evening of April 24th call the day 'Justice Sunday,' and depict a young man holding a Bible in one hand and a gavel in the...

An End to the Judicial Filibuster? 04/13 09:42 AM Are the Democratic filibusters coming to an end? That’s the indication from today’s story in The Hill. Democrat Senator Ben Nelson is pursuing a deal with Trent Lott that would allow for floor votes on controversial judicial nominees after an allotted time for debate. The proposal would create a permanent Senate rules change. While The Hill notes Harry Reid would certainly be against the proposal, there may be enough moderate Democrats from red states to push it through. Nelson and a number of centrist Democrats have also indicated that should Harry...

Democrat senators pounce on comments by Cornyn that linked recent episodes of courtroom violence to public anger over judicial rulings By Chuck Lindell AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF Wednesday, April 6, 2005 WASHINGTON -- With hostilities over judicial nominees tilting toward open warfare in the U.S. Senate, Democrats pounced Tuesday on comments by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, that linked recent episodes of courtroom violence to public anger over politically active judges. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid called Cornyn's comments, delivered Monday on the Senate floor, difficult to comprehend and justify, and House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer dismissed Cornyn's opinion as "absurd -- but...

In his Sunday column, George Will makes his most comprehensive argument yet against Senate Republicans' modifying the filibuster rule to prevent its use against judicial nominees. I respond to some of his major points below. Will writes: Some conservatives call filibusters of judicial nominations unconstitutional because they violate the separation of powers by preventing the president from doing his constitutional duty of staffing the judiciary. But the Senate has the constitutional role of completing the staffing process that the president initiates. Of course, this begs the question. If a majority of the senators decide that they want to change one...

With Republicans inclined to change Senate rules to make filibusters of judicial nominees impossible, Democrats have recklessly given Republicans an additional incentive to do so. It is a redundant incentive, because Republicans think -- mistakenly -- that they have sufficient constitutional reasons for doing so. Today 60 Senate votes are required to end a filibuster. There are 55 Republican senators but not five Democrats who will join them. Republicans may seek a ruling from the chair -- Vice President Cheney presiding -- that filibustering judicial nominees is impermissible, a ruling that a simple majority of senators could enforce. Democrats say...

Boxer on the Constitution: End It, Don't Amend It The far-left outfit MoveOn.org held a rally the other day in support of Democratic obstructionism, and among the senators who spoke was Angry Left heartthrob Barbara Boxer. Radioblogger.com has audio and a transcript of her defense of judicial filibusters, which is quite astonishing: Why would we give lifetime appointments to people who earn up to $200,000 a year, with absolutely a great retirement system, and all the things all Americans wish for, with absolutely no check and balance except that one confirmation vote? So we're saying we think you ought to...

A January 1, 1995, Times editorial on proposals to restrict the use of Senate filibusters: In the last session of Congress, the Republican minority invoked an endless string of filibusters to frustrate the will of the majority. This relentless abuse of a time-honored Senate tradition so disgusted Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa, that he is now willing to forgo easy retribution and drastically limit the filibuster. Hooray for him. . . . Once a rarely used tactic reserved for issues on which senators held passionate views, the filibuster has become the tool of the sore loser, . ....

On Wednesday, March 16th, MoveOn is holding a rally in Washington, DC, to support the Democrats' UNCONSTITUTIONAL filibustering of President Bush's judicial nominees. Leading the charge at MoveOn's rally will be Sen. Robert "KKK" Byrd (D-WV) -- the same Sen. Byrd who once said regarding filibuster rules, "This Congress is not obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past." In fact, it was Sen. Byrd who 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. So once again, the...

Time to Bust the Filibusters by Gary Schneeberger, editor The blockade of President Bush's judicial nominations is wrong — and the Democrats know it. The way liberal senators like Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy have talked of late, you'd think the Constitution guaranteed them the right to twist Senate rules to block President Bush's judicial nominees. The reality, though, is that no article, section, amendment — or stray sentence — in our nation's founding document authorizes the Senate's Democratic minority to abuse filibusters as they have for the past four years: as a means of keeping those with whom they...

It's just plain wrong for a handful of senators – Democrats or Republicans – to prevent the Senate from voting on any presidential nomination. The Constitution is abundantly clear: the president is empowered to nominate officials and judges; the Senate is required to "advise and consent" – or not. The Senate is not authorized to manufacture a procedural obstacle course that prevents the body from voting on the president's nominees. Senate Democrats successfully blocked a vote on 10 presidential nominations during president Bush's first term. They are preparing to do the same thing in the second term. The remedy is...

A Klansman turned Senator accuses President Bush of using Hitlerian tactic. Not a head turns. Republicans have comfortable control over the US Senate, yet they gently tip-toe like syncophants to the minority. The Republican Senate Majority Leader backs down from fights regarding a cornerstone of President Bush's 2nd term policy goals and a fight for judges that could turn the course of history and mold the future of America for the foreseeable future and beyond. There is a severe lack of leadership and unity in the U.S. Senate and the time has come to call the majority leader for what...

The simmering controversy over Democratic filibusters of President George W. Bush's nominees to the federal appellate courts continues to push the constitutional envelope. Even among conservatives themselves, there is profound disagreement about whether the filibusters violate separation-of-powers principles. Leaving that weighty issue aside (for today, anyway), now a new question arises: What is meant by the advice part of "advice and consent"? The impetus for asking is clear enough. The Senate appears to be careening toward High Noon at the OK Corral — a decisive, bloody battle over the filibusters. Parliamentary maneuvering by Democrats has blocked full-Senate consideration of about...

Questions for judicial nominees Posted: February 28, 2005 1:00 a.m. Eastern © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com Two weeks ago, President Bush re-nominated 12 candidates for federal appeals court seats whose confirmations were blocked by Senate Democrats during his first term. Bush says judicial nominees deserve an up-or-down vote in the Senate. That's the way the Founding Fathers intended for the Senate to be heard on judicial nominees. Instead, Bush's political opposition, too weak to prevent most nominees from approval, has prevented the nominees from coming up for a vote. While I support some of Bush's judicial nominees, I oppose others. The effect...

Will Senate Republicans go "nuclear" for California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown? Columnist Robert Novak reported recently that in March, the GOP will use Brown's now- stalled nomination to the federal bench as a test run for the "nuclear option" - a strategy to foil Democratic filibusters and confirm judges with a simple majority vote, through parliamentary hardball. ... But Brown's star power derives from more than her impressive personal story. She is an intellectual leader of California's high court and its most articulate voice for limited government and individual freedom. A judge's first and last duty, in her...

THERE IS no vacancy on the Supreme Court, but the battle over the next nominee has already begun. Hollywood's favorite group, People for the American Way, is bragging about its new war room, equipped with dozens of computers and scores of staffers to conduct opposition research on President Bush's presumed nominees and network with grassroots organizations. Other liberal groups are conducting polling and raising funds for paid television advertising. Conservatives must prepare for this fight, but in a way that is smarter and different from the past. The left's approach will be to smear the candidate, whomever he or she...

THERE IS no vacancy on the Supreme Court, but the battle over the next nominee has already begun. Hollywood's favorite group, People for the American Way, is bragging about its new war room, equipped with dozens of computers and scores of staffers to conduct opposition research on President Bush's presumed nominees and network with grassroots organizations. Other liberal groups are conducting polling and raising funds for paid television advertising. Conservatives must prepare for this fight, but in a way that is smarter and different from the past. The left's approach will be to smear the candidate, whomever he or she...

The Democrat filibuster of judicial nominees in the Senate is unprecedented. Unfortunately, even a handful of conservatives treat these filibusters in the context of political calculations rather than unconstitutional abuses of power. Whatever the politics of ending the Senate's judicial filibusters, and one can only speculate, defending the Constitution is paramount.http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050110-084508-7971r.htm

MCCAIN VETOES NUKE OPTION [Jonathan H. Adler] According to How Appealing, CQ is reporting Senator McCain will not support using the "nuclear" option to end judicial filibusters. If so, there goes any leverage Senator Frist had in dealing with the Dems.

.......regarding Democrats' filibustering Bush's judicial nominations, that they ignore the first rule of holes: When you're in one, stop digging. In No. 76 of the Federalist Papers — a collection often cited by the Supreme Court as a reliable road map to the Constitution — Alexander Hamilton says plainly that the "advice and consent" responsibility is to be exercised by an "entire branch of the legislature" and not by a single committee or 41 senators denying cloture. To express consent, or to deny it, requires an up or down vote. A filibuster prevents advice and consent, hence is unconstitutional. In...

I rarely disagree with NRO's editors, but I do on the matter of judicial filibusters (or the minority threatening to use them). The so-called "nuclear option" was launched several years ago by the Senate Democrats. They've prevented a Senate vote on 10 judicial nominees, and threaten to do the same to another 6. Let's not split hairs here. At not time in our history has a Senate minority acted with such complete contempt for the Constitution, contempt for a president, or disregard for the Senate's proper role. The Senate rules have never been used this way. The super-majority requirements in...

A scenario for an unspecified day in 2005: One of President Bush's judicial nominations is brought to the Senate floor. Majority Leader Bill Frist makes a point of order that only a simple majority is needed for confirmation. The point is upheld by the presiding officer, Vice President Dick Cheney. Democratic Leader Harry Reid challenges the ruling. Frist moves to table Reid's motion, ending debate. The motion is tabled, and the Senate proceeds to confirm the judicial nominee -- all in about 10 minutes. This is the ''nuclear option'' that creates fear and loathing among Democrats and weak knees for...

The editors at National Review Online have opined that the Republicans must resist the temptation to change the Senate rules (which Republican Senators believe they can do by a simple majority) to prevent filibusters of judicial nominees. This threat to change the rules has been referred to as the "nuclear option". (The NRO editorial and the accompanying Free Republic thread can be found HERE.) The NRO editors believe that it would be wiser for Republicans to play the "Democrats are obstructionists" card during the political campaign season and hope that the folks who comprise the malleable "middle" (the clueless "undecideds"...