Post #207,828
5/17/05 1:42:51 PM
|
Filibuster vote looming
[link|http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/17/politics/main695730.shtml|CBS News] Top Senate leaders have given up on their efforts to compromise over 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 long-standing filibuster rules.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said Tuesday his negotiations with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist failed because he 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 blocking a confirmation vote, Reid said. Nice to see that Reid has a grasp of what is really at stake here. The showdown is looming, but the exact date date has not been set. The showdown was orginally supposed to happen this week, but the uncertainty over which way the vote would go has kept it stalled. The Republicans seem to be hoping that they can get a number of Democrats to back some compromise that caves on all the important points and save them from having to actually change the rules. For their part, the Democrats are trying hard to keep the ranks closed. Jay
|
Post #208,332
5/23/05 10:45:40 PM
|
Compromise reached
[link|http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=784679|reported here]. Only thing I could never figure out was how the heck they planned to get the filibuster rules repealed since such rules changes would have to be passed filibuster rules in place. If they could railroad through a rule change, then surely they have enuf power to get the nominees through.
But then this administration has shown a callous disregard for conservative values and traditions, favoring big government with virtually unlimited power. Why let 200 years of Senate tradition stand in the way of the getting what it wants?
|
Post #208,334
5/23/05 10:53:47 PM
|
I hope it holds.
Last week, I had sent my two (Republican) senators as well as Frist email that said the "nuclear option" was an example of "the tyranny of the majority" the founding fathers worried about and the first step to a theocracy. Not that my email would make any difference.
Alex
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell
|
Post #208,336
5/23/05 11:01:40 PM
|
Wife rattled off a note to Frist as well....
...made her take out the term treasonous, but I'm sure the black copters have been alerted to our stance that the current republican administration has its collective head up its ass. And no doubt the administration will once again pull this shit whenever it feels its mandate under threat of any actual attempt at compromise. After all, 52% of the voters went republican in the last two elections, a clear indication that the other 48% are unamerican.
|
Post #208,339
5/23/05 11:20:59 PM
|
Apparently all it would take is a "Point of Order" vote.
The Filibuster is part of the Rules of the Senate. Changing Rules requires a 2/3 vote (67 Senators). But the Presiding Officer (the President of the Senate - VP Cheney) can make a ruling on a Point of Order motion. Naturally, he would rule for Frist - apparently independent of what the Rules actually say. There could be debate, but when the debate (which can't be filibustered) ends, a simple majority of the Senate decides.
Presto, a prescedent is set saying that a judicial filibuster can be broken by simple majority vote.
It's a very sneaky way to do it, but apparently this tactic has been used in the past - though never (AFAIK) on something as important as this.
[link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/23/AR2005052300777.html|More details here from the AP].
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #208,341
5/23/05 11:27:18 PM
|
Thanks. Figured it was something along those lines.
|
Post #208,455
5/24/05 7:51:33 PM
|
Have to see how this plays out
I can't tell right now which party came out ahead, this could end up working for either party. The question becomes how does 'extraordinary circumstances' play out in practice.
If the republicans can force it to mean that no judicial canidate is blocked, then it is a big win for them. If the democrats can keep all 7 of those not specifically named by the deal from passing and keep their options to fillabuster open it will be a win for them.
The worst case scenario is that the republicans will get the 3 allowed by the deal through, and then go ahead and force the nuclear option on then next canidate. I don't think they have the votes to do it, but I'm sure they will be counting heads to see if they can.
The obvious winner here is McCain, who gains a lot of moderate and independent republican credits here. It will also be a big win for Lieberman if it doesn't turn into a disaster. Lieberman really needs something he could point to as a success as a moderate democrat.
Jay
|
Post #208,458
5/24/05 8:42:51 PM
|
look out Lindsey Graham is the dark horse here
Always liked his style in the impeachment days. He being one of the architects states that if the 4th and 5th dont make it to the floor without cause, he will push the button.
thanx,
bill
All tribal myths are true, for a given value of "true" Terry Pratchett
[link|http://boxleys.blogspot.com/|http://boxleys.blogspot.com/]
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 48 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #208,466
5/24/05 10:15:54 PM
|
I wish them the best of luck.
The worst case scenario is that the republicans will get the 3 allowed by the deal through, and then go ahead and force the nuclear option on then next canidate. I don't think they have the votes to do it, but I'm sure they will be counting heads to see if they can. It would be a public relations disaster for them to do that. Talk about giving the loyal opposition a stick with which to beat them about the head and shoulders for the next decade! "Republicans don't even live up to their agreements!" Perhaps shrill, but effective. And even the WimploditesDemocrats couldn't help but exploit that to its fullest. jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #208,529
5/25/05 10:40:33 AM
|
Too late
[link|http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=956|Frist is already reneging on the deal.]
He claims the agreement doesn't apply to him, only the 14 senators who signed off on it.
Well, that was a pleasant fifteen minutes.
Tom Sinclair
"This is a lovely party," said the Bursar to a chair, "I wish I was here."
-- The Bursar is a man under a *lot* of stress
(Terry Pratchett, Lords and Ladies)
|
Post #208,534
5/25/05 10:52:09 AM
|
he doesnt have the votes
Lindsey said he would oppose any nuclear option unless the dems reneged on their side, frist is losing control of his troops, look for a leadership change soon.
thanx,
bill
All tribal myths are true, for a given value of "true" Terry Pratchett
[link|http://boxleys.blogspot.com/|http://boxleys.blogspot.com/]
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 48 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #208,539
5/25/05 11:06:35 AM
|
Nice segue to WP article by Dan Balz
[link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/24/AR2005052401475.html?sub=AR|For GOP, Deeper Fissures and a Looming Power Struggle]: The fallout from the Senate compromise that averted a showdown over judicial filibusters fell most heavily on the Republican Party yesterday, signaling intraparty warfare that is likely to shape the battle for the party's 2008 presidential nomination and further strain the unity the GOP has enjoyed under President Bush.
Monday's surprise deal left two of the party's most prominent potential 2008 candidates, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (Tenn.) and Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), on opposite sides of an ideological and strategic divide that is likely to widen as the party begins in earnest to hunt for a successor to Bush. Perhaps mindful of the power of social and religious conservatives, other GOP senators with presidential aspirations, including George Allen (Va.) and Chuck Hagel (Neb.), condemned the deal.
[...]
But Frist's inability or unwillingness to strike a deal with Harry M. Reid (Nev.), the Senate Democratic leader, empowered McCain and his allies to seize control of the debate. The body language of the two GOP senators -- McCain ebullient in announcing the deal, and Frist taut and drawn in interpreting it moments later on the Senate floor -- spoke volumes about the immediate reading of who won and who lost.
[...] We'll have to see how it turns out, but at the moment it looks like a defeat for Frist and a victory for moderates like Warner and McCain. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #208,646
5/26/05 2:54:10 AM
|
Then there are those icky polls..
[link|http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/05/25/poll/index.html| Salon]. In the polls
Connecticut's Quinnipiac University released a [link|http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11385.xml?ReleaseID=738| new poll] this morning surveying Americans' attitudes on abortion, the filibuster fight, and the Bush presidency. The numbers don't look great for the right wing or the White House.
By 63 to 33 percent, Americans support the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, with men supporting it at a higher rate (68 to 28 percent) than women (58 to 37 percent).
For all the rhetoric from the religious right about "outrage" over the filibuster compromise, the poll revealed that opinions about the nuclear option divided along party lines, with Republicans against the filibuster 48 to 39 percent, and Democrats supporting its use by 70 to 23 percent. Independent voters, meanwhile, backed the use of the filibuster by a margin of 54 to 39 percent.
"While the filibuster fight ended in a truce, most American voters were backing the Democrats on this one," said Maurice Carroll, Director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, in a statement. "If this fight were really about Roe v. Wade, Quinnipiac University polls have shown a consistent 2 -1 support for this historic ruling, with more support from men."
The poll saves its worst news for the president, with 50 percent of Americans disapproving of Bush's job performance. This confirms [link|http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/05/24/bush_polls/index.html| other recent polls] that found the president's job approval at an all-time low.
-- Julia Scott
[13:47 EDT, May 25, 2005]
|
Post #208,549
5/25/05 11:43:46 AM
|
Fine!
Let him try it. The 7 Repos who brokered the deal are sure not to follow Frist's "lead" lest they be seen as men (and women?) not of their word, which is as good as a censure vote in the day-to-day machinations of the Senate. Those 7 votes will guarantee 1) tha Frist loses on changing hte rules, and 2) that cloture will not be invoked.
Together, that will emasculate Frist on this issue, and weaken him in the eyes of der F\ufffdrher and der Architekt.... It certainly strengthens McCain's hand (which is just about the last thing der F\ufffdrher would want). It's entirely possible that Frist gets "directed" to back down on this one.
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
