Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 5/9/2003 8:37:01 AM EDT
[url=http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030509-786855.htm]Frist to seek rules change to end filibusters on judges[/url] Republicans plan to begin the process today of using their so-called "nuclear option" to end the Democratic filibusters of judicial nominees by changing Senate rules governing how many votes are required to break such blockades. Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, plans to introduce the rules change today, according to two Senate aides involved in the Republican planning. Currently, 60 votes are required to break a filibuster, which is also called invoking cloture. The resolution, co-sponsored by several senators, will require 60 votes only in the first attempt at invoking cloture. In each attempt after that, the vote requirement will drop by three until it reaches a simple majority of 51 votes. This rule change will apply only to executive nominations, not legislative business. Republicans hope the plan will be greeted favorably by some Democrats and thus increase their chances of getting it passed. The idea was first floated by Sen. Zell Miller, Georgia Democrat, in an Op-Ed piece in the Wall Street Journal several months ago. Mr. Miller has consistently voted with Republicans to end the filibusters. In 1995, a similar plan was introduced by Democratic Sens. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Tom Harkin of Iowa.
View Quote
Very legal. Very Constitutional. And very appropriate.
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 8:42:48 AM EDT
No fucking way. If we cannot nominate judges who can garner enough support to break a filibuster, then they should not be nominated.
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 8:45:52 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SC-Texas: No fucking way. If we cannot nominate judges who can garner enough support to break a filibuster, then they should not be nominated.
View Quote
OK, so we should throw out that whole 50% is the majority thing? This is a PARTISAN issue! Liberal dems are making sure the courts don't become CONSERVATIVE. A conservative court only quotes the constitution. Libs prefer as court that rewrites and interprets the constitution. Are you a fan of the 9th circuit court? I am not.
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 8:46:36 AM EDT
Another thing, watch your language. This is a respectable establishment.
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 8:47:39 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SC-Texas: No fucking way. If we cannot nominate judges who can garner enough support to break a filibuster, then they should not be nominated.
View Quote
You serious!?!? [whacko] The amount of votes needed to break a filibuster is arbitrary. It's set by the majority. There's nothing in the Constitution that says anything about needing 61% of the Senate to approve a judicial nominee. Where in the world are you coming from!?????
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 8:52:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SC-Texas: No fucking way. If we cannot nominate judges who can garner enough support to break a filibuster, then they should not be nominated.
View Quote
Uh, are you aware as to why they are blocking this guy? Some of the quotes from Dems are downright racist.
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 8:53:03 AM EDT
The only reason this is an issue is due to Senate Rule 22, and is not based in the Constitution. According to the Constitution, a judicial nominee only needs a simple majority. A Constitutional Amendment, a veto, and a legislative veto need a super majority to pass. This is a partisian issue, abd the liberals don't want Constitutional judges (such as the judge from Mississippi, or Estrada) appointed. THey want judges who make laws from the bench, such as the 9th Circus Court. And we need to end this BS.
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 8:54:50 AM EDT
Good for them! I hope thay ram it down the Democrats' throats!
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 9:02:45 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/10/2003 6:52:44 PM EDT
Not to hijack this thread, but DF, you look kinda like Wille Nelson!!
Link Posted: 5/10/2003 7:15:33 PM EDT
The Republicans won't change the rules 'cause they are chicken. It must be h... to be a democrap and have as your elected representatives Hillary, Schumer, Pelosi, Kennedy, Boxer, Feinstein, Rangel, Daschle, Murray, Shelia Jackson Lee, Maxine Walters, Kerry, etc. I would change parties before I would acknowledge them as my representatives.
Link Posted: 5/10/2003 7:29:21 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/10/2003 7:42:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/10/2003 7:43:53 PM EDT by Max_Mike]
There has never been a filibuster of a judicial nominee by the party in the minority. Judicial nominees have never been filibuster solely on their perceived conservative or liberal slant. The Democrats obviously do not give a damn about tradition. There is NO Constitutional requirement for judges to be confirmed by 60%. This maneuver is within Senate rules it has never been done but is allowable. The Republicans will probably not go that far and that is a real shame because when the shoe is on the other foot and the Democrats will not hesitate to do this to get around any filibuster on judicial nominees. The Democrats have NOW change the historical ground rules on how judges are approved. When next in the minority the Republicans will have no choice but to do likewise and filibuster. And this option will then be open to the Democrats and you can bet you butt they will not hesitate.
Link Posted: 5/10/2003 7:44:05 PM EDT
This will be a good change. I like it. About fricking time something sensible is done in congress.
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed: I don't sing as good as he does though.
View Quote
Either you sing real horrible or you need a new stereo DF. [BD]
Link Posted: 5/10/2003 7:59:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/10/2003 8:03:22 PM EDT by nightstalker]
Originally Posted By Max_Mike: There has never been a filibuster of a judicial nominee by the party in the minority. Judicial nominees have never been filibuster solely on their perceived conservative or liberal slant. The Democrats obviously do not give a damn about tradition. There is NO Constitutional requirement for judges to be confirmed by 60%. This maneuver is within Senate rules it has never been done but is allowable. The Republicans will probably not go that far and that is a real shame because when the shoe is on the other foot and the Democrats will not hesitate to do this to get around any filibuster on judicial nominees. The Democrats have NOW change the historical ground rules on how judges are approved. When next in the minority the Republicans will have no choice but to do likewise and filibuster. And this option will then be open to the Democrats and you can bet you butt they will not hesitate.
View Quote
The rules used to be unlimited debate. Wilson asked for a 2/3 cloture and eventually cloture became it's present 3/5. Only "use" previously of filibuster on a court nominee was for Abe Fortas, already a sitting Supreme Court Justice, to replace Warren as Chief Justice, not exactly the same thing as we have here. Southern Dems and Republicans considered him too liberal and "threatened" filibuster and that was enough for Fortas to remove his name from consideration and in fact he resigned not long after IIRC. I say put em up for a vote. There are many ways to influence Senator's votes and new ones will be invented if the old ones don't work.
Link Posted: 5/10/2003 8:01:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Mugzilla: Another thing, watch your language. This is a respectable establishment.
View Quote
[ROFL2] Now that's funny! (WGAFF)
Link Posted: 5/10/2003 8:07:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SC-Texas: No ... way. If we cannot nominate judges who can garner enough support to break a filibuster, then they should not be nominated.
View Quote
I would agree, if the votes were based on judicial qualification. Unfortunately, the democrats have openly declared that they will not support people who don't hold their views on a number of issues--abortion being the biggest of those. [b]The democrats have made this into just another political issue rather than what was visibly intended by the writers of our constitution.[/b] Reread that last sentence several times, if necessary.
Link Posted: 5/10/2003 8:41:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed: I don't sing as good as he does though.
View Quote
I wouldn't be to sure about that! Willie is kinda like Bob Dylan in the singing arena. Some like it, and some don't. I just happen to like it!!
Top Top