Posted on 05/18/2005 12:23:36 AM PDT by RWR8189
The "nuclear option" will have a long fuse.
If all goes as planned, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) will rise after several days of debate beginning today over one of President Bush's judicial nominees and call for an end to Democrats' delaying tactics. The presiding officer will then rule in his favor.
Democrats will protest the ruling and ask for a vote to overturn it. The Republican leader will seek to table that appeal. If Frist and the GOP majority prevail, a long tradition of filibustering will be narrowed and a new precedent will be set allowing the Republicans to force a vote on a nomination with a simple majority instead of three-fifths of the Senate.
Republicans hold 55 of the seats in the chamber, and until now they have needed 60 votes to end debate and force a vote. But Republicans believe they have figured out how to use the chamber's rules so that only a simple majority -- 51 votes -- is required to force an up-or-down vote.
To get there, Republicans will have to evade a requirement that they have a two-thirds vote -- 67 of 100 senators -- to change the chamber's rules. Republicans will argue that they are attempting to set a precedent, not change the Senate rules, to disallow the use of filibusters as a delaying tactic on judicial nominations. And by doing so, they say, they are returning to a more traditional concept of majority rule.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Wont happen, there will be a compromise that keeps the filibusters in place. And the Minority Dems will win again..
I have given Frist a LOT of leeway, but the simple fact is he's a wimp. I'm not turning on him, I think he's a good guy, but...he's a wimp.
Since the Post began with a lie there was no point in reading further.
Since the Post began with a lie there was no point in reading further
_____________________________________________________
Exactly.
We'll find out soon just where the wimps lie
`
After Frist's performance of late, I'm not holding out much hope. Frist will cave in and that, as they say, will be that.
Frist like Lott before him has no balls, Frist is a wimp and couldn't lead the Sun out of the ocean in the morning.
This girlie man wants to be president? Heaven help us.
Didn't read the entire article, but it fits with the statements made recently by Frist.
There will be *NO* call for cloture, also known as Rule XXII. That's how to get around the 60 vote supermajority. In it's place is the device known as unanimous consent.
If the public perceives that a SINGLE Senator, or small bloc of Senators is holding up a nominee, the public will be pissed. Without a cloture vote to mass behind, the DEMs will have to fabricate cover for their action from whole cloth.
The DEMs decry majority rule, but they are aiming to replace it with minority rule, and that just won't fly.
"Since the Post began with a lie there was no point in reading further."
Actually there is: OPPOSITION RESEARCH. And to know what our kids are being indoctrinated with....
Anybody else bother to read far enough to catch the phrase "Republicans will have to evade a requirement that they have a two-thirds vote...."?
-- THREE lies in one phrase, this could be a new Guiness World's record....or Ripley's....
This is the step that I speculate will NOT happen. Cloture was brought up by the GOP, for judicial nominees, about 20 times in the last Congress. It never worked.
I see using Rule XXII, cloture, as an ADMISSION of sorts, that the 60 vote supermajority is not inappropriate. Frist could have tackled Rule XXII at the start of the Congress, but all he did was say that he was not acquiescing to it. He did not seek unanimous consent to preserve the issue, as was done on January 3, 1957 to set-up a later head-on debate of Rule XXII itself. The pertinent material is at the second column of S14, linked below.
Page S13 of Senate Record
Page S14 of Senate Record
The following HIGHLY RECOMMENDED article has a summary of several past attempts to impose a simple majority process. Interesting in that it provides historical perspective, the "nuclear option" is nothing new. Neither is moving the vote on a simple majority, which was the written rule of the Senate from 1789 until 1806. Whatever "tradition" filibuster has, even for legislative matters, is not 200 years old. 140 years old, maybe.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Gold_Gupta_JLPP_article.pdf
And here are some more links, for the serious student.
RS20801 - December 11, 2002 - Cloture Attempts on Nominations
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS20801.pdf
RL30360 - March 28, 2003 - Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30360.pdf
RL32843 - March 28, 2005 - "Entrenchment" of Senate Procedure and the "Nuclear" Option for Change
http://www.afj.org/judicial/crsnuclear.pdf
RL31948 - March 29, 2005 - Evolution of Senate's Role in Nomination/Confirmation
http://shelby.senate.gov/legislation/JudNom-History.pdf
RL32684 - April 5, 2005 - Changing Senate Rules - The "Nuclear" Option
http://www.andrewhyman.com/crs.pdf
Riddick's Senate Procedure
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/riddick/browse.html
I think that's not an unfair statement. If the GOP made a head-on attack to change Rule XXII, they would have its language to contend with.
RULE XXII
PRECEDENCE OF MOTIONS2. Notwithstanding the provisions of rule II or rule IV or any other rule of the Senate, at any time a motion signed by sixteen Senators, to bring to a close the debate upon any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, is presented to the Senate, the Presiding Officer, or clerk at the direction of the Presiding Officer, shall at once state the motion to the Senate, and one hour after the Senate meets on the following calendar day but one, he shall lay the motion before the Senate and direct that the clerk call the roll, and upon the ascertainment that a quorum is present, the Presiding Officer shall, without debate, submit to the Senate by a yea-and-nay vote the question:
"Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.
http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/menu.htm <-- All the Rules
So, the conventional methods to bring debate to a close are unanimous consent, or to use this rule, Rule XXII, cloture. But what if cloture is never called for? What would that process look like?
I should be amazed at the bias shown in the first 3 paragraphs...but I'm not.
It's not a matter of 'turning'on anyone - Frist (and Hastert, and Lott, and McCain, and ....) have proven by their (lack of) performance - a complete inability to provide strong leadership in the Congress. They have failed to get the support the President needs/needed to get more than a handful of his programs launched. The fault has also to be shared by Bush himself - who spent more time pandering to his political opponents. Opponents, who did embarass themselves and their supporters but have none-the-less been effective in blocking many of the legislative efforts of the 'majority' party.
If this 'girly-man' party is what you all want - you'll LOVE Romney. Look what he (hasn't) accomplished for the mASS. Republican party! (HINT: NADA)
Snow, Collins, McCain, Voinovich, Specter. We'll need Cheney to break the tie. Don't count your Hatch before he chickens. Has Frist turned a single Democrat? Not likely.
Frist was on the radio this am saying this week's manuevers will lay the groundwork for "next week." Real soon now, uh huh.
No judges, no bucks.
And if this vote is taken? Apologies to Senator Frist should be forthcoming at the time. I don't believe they will be, apologies are never offered by those that were wrong in their criticism. Justification is instead offered.
Senator Frist, Good Luck. RINO's, we're watching you.
WP and NYT's are evidently freaking out given their articles today. lol
Part of that would be the President's fault. He pushed for Specter's re-election when he could have had a reliable friend in Toomey. And George has not only failed to maintain party discipline, he hasn't even tried to impose it.
And this post details the things Frist failed to do at the start of this Congress.
Good post.
Naysayers? No better than RINOS, IMHO. Think on that folks.
Actually there is: OPPOSITION RESEARCH
____________________________________________________________
Good point but there is so much Dim PSYOPS in the media this week it is tough to deal with it all.
Agree, The ComPOST is just doing, with what comes naturally for a Liberal cesspool (I refuse to call it an Institution :) ,it disseminates provable Falsehoods and Liberal Propaganda
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.