Filibuster Showdown Looms In Senate on next court pick

[emc]

Thanks for the comments, Desertdog! What I'm getting at is when the call goes forth for the filibuster, then the Republicans just need to say "Fine, give it your best!" and then settle down for the long haul. But it hasn't happened, and I just don't think that the Dems could keep it going for any period of time, in which case it would just collapse and then I would think we could get rolling on getting important business done. At any rate, that's my take on this. If there are some things I'm not quite picking up on, feel free to chime in. I have opinions, but am always willing to learn.

FWIW,

emc

 

[RealGun]

The gang of 14 includes moderate Democrats. If a filibuster is not for good reason as they see it, they all would vote for cloture, assuming the Senate majority party is united against the filibuster. As long as that works, and it hasn't been tested, the "nuclear option" will not be back on the table.

Within reason, not alienating the Democrats among the Gang of 14, the President can nominate and count on confirmation of whoever he wants. That actually gives control to the Democrats among the Gang of 14, when all voting is partisan. If that coalition falls apart, possibly the fault of the President being confrontational, then the "nuclear option" gets dusted off and becomes a real possibility. If passed, that would mean that filibusters are not allowed during executive session. It would have no effect upon legislative session.

That's my understanding, and I thought I would throw that in as a refresher.

 

[TonkinTwentyMil]

Re: Gonzalez...

Bartholomew Roberts:

My condemnation of Gonzalez and his unsuitability for the Court is NOT based on his confirmation hearing remarks.

There's a quote out there in a news interview where he stated his opposition to "assault weapons" because his brother is a Houston police officer... and thus, he (Att'y Gen Gonzalez) views assault weps as a threat to his brother's life.

Accordingly, if THAT doesn't place Gonzalez in the, umm, sorority of Ballistic Illiterates who believe that (a) ALL Semi-Automatic firearms are eeeevil, and (b) the 2A is all about duck hunting, then I'm a Metrosexual-Pacifist-Cultural-Elitist.

When Gonzalez clearly states his support of the Second Amendment as (a) guaranteeing an INDIVIDUAL right, and (b) condemnation of New Orleans style confiscation, then I'll see him as pro-2A... and not another Souter/Kennedy flipper.

 

[Monkeyleg]

Just remember that the "nuclear option" is a precedent that, once established, can be used by a Democrat majority as well.

 

[perception]

Just remember that the "nuclear option" is a precedent that, once established, can be used by a Democrat majority as well.

I don't think the Democrat majority would hesitate to set the precedent if they had a majority. I think they would use the nuclear option in a heartbeat if the tables were turned. I think we should go ahead and use it if need be, as the Dems will probably use it if they need it anyway.

 

[Monkeyleg]

perception, you may be right or you may be wrong. I don't know.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "nuclear option" has never been used in the Senate before. For better or worse, the US Senate operates under gentlemans' rules that date back to the days of our Founders.

If Frist employs it, then Schumer (God forbid) will when the Dem's take the majority.

And then we will be in a world of hurt.

You and I and every other "regular folk" think that our elected officials fight for our sides, and despise their opponents.

It doesn't work that way.

After the "Chuck Chvala midnight massacre" in 2002, in which the then-majority leader bent and broke every rule to keep our concealed carry bill from coming to a vote, the supporters who had sat in the gallery all day and night were ready for lynchings.

While we stood there and steamed about how we had been robbed of our vote, the senators from both parties went to the bars across the street. Democrat or Republican, they all get along (for the most part). They're friends.

And it's no different in Washington, except for those who stand on principle and refuse to bargain.

Hey, why not? Members of the club get free haircuts, the best medical care that taxpayers can buy, lifetime pensions that the rest of us would give our right testicles for, free trips to exotic locales to examine this-or-that supposed problem, and attention from a fawning media.

It's like being a rock superstar, but without the requisite talent. Just that John Edwards look. You know, the hair parted on the side.

And, oh, yeah, they all have to be able to say, "at the end of the day..." no matter what the issue at hand.

We don't have a dysfunctional goverment. I wish we did. I love it when the congress is in "gridlock." That means that no more laws can be passed.

Kennedy, Reid, Schumer and other ultra-left senators gave the go-ahead to the rest of their cohorts to confirm Roberts.

They're saving their powder for the next nominee.

 

[longeyes]

If Bush thinks he can win over the Dems by trying to be "moderate" he's nuts. They HATE him, and no matter what he does they will go on hating him. It's pathological, but there it is--does he not know this YET? Of course my belief is that Bush too has some pathology of his own going on: an outsized need to be loved and a misconceived notion that a President's job is to be "compassionate."

I too voted for Bush because I thought he could change the course of American history, peacefully, by changing the composition of the Supreme Court. If he can't or won't do that all the rest, so far as I'm concerned, is pretty meaningless. A failure now, frankly, could mean the end of America and a whole lot of nastiness up ahead.

Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), a member of the Gang of 14 who plans to vote for Roberts, said a filibuster will be warranted if "the president appoints someone who brings a right-wing ideology and is going to use the court to advance their views."

Flash: The Constitution itself, to the Left, is "right-wing ideology." The only Constitution they believe in is the one they wish the Founding Fathers had written with later revisions by Karl Marx.

 

[RealGun]

Flash: The Constitution itself, to the Left, is "right-wing ideology." - longeyes

That's an excellent way of stating the problem.

I think what conservatives want is more Justices who would have sided with dissenting votes in so many of the rulings we despise. Campaign Finance Reform was 5-4. The Patriot Act slid by them. The Brady Bill, etc., etc.

I won't be satisfied until the Court, the clerks actually, issue statements of reasoning when they don't accept a case. If they only or can only hear 85 cases a year, there is a lot of due process being denied. Yet at the same time, they seem to find jurisdiction and interest in some pretty weird stuff that has no apparent justification.

What would be a good example of what is so wrong with the Supreme Court is that they could find a basis for banning capital punishment. That ruling would not in any way be supported by the Constitution, but they think it's their job to do social engineering. Whatever they do, Congress will not challenge the Court. The whole mess is the fault of Congress and the President. I guess they are trying to protect the Court and the law from disrespect, but at some point we have to acknowledge that the Court and the legal profession is out of control, and that as a result, the Constitution means very little. The Constitution becomes a suggestion or general guideline instead of a constraint, something to be ignored or explained away if it doesn't support the desired outcome.

I really couldn't be entirely respectful of government until the Constitution was revisited. I would give States a much smaller role, acknowledging in many ways how the country has changed since its founding. My main concern is that the quality of my US citizenship depends upon in which State I live. The Supreme Court has already blurred the line extensively, but we have never confronted it as it should be by revising the Constitution and having Congress decide how things should be. When the Congress needs ratification of constitutional changes, they should pursue those changes by the normal process. If an amendment won't fly, then everyone should shut up about it. The issue should not then default to the Supreme Court. It is a dead issue. Move on and keep ones peace.

 

[tulsamal]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "nuclear option" has never been used in the Senate before. For better or worse, the US Senate operates under gentlemans' rules that date back to the days of our Founders.

I would say your confusion here is a reflection of the fact that the media almost never explains this correctly!

The "legislative filibuster" would not be affected by an change in the rules. If a bill is pending before the Senate and you want to filibuster it, go ahead. That's the "normal filibuster" that we all learned about in American Government classes.

Using the filibuster to stop a judicial appointment is a whole NEW thing. The GOP has never done that. (Not that they wouldn't or won't down the road if the rules don't change and these partisan antics continue.)

There are a couple different things to remember here. You have to ask yourself which party the President belongs to and also which party controls the majority of the Senate. That matters if you are going to talk about past history. Yes, the GOP DID block some of Clinton's judicial nominations. BUT, and this always seems to be left out, the GOP was the majority party of the Senate at the time. Clinton HAD to pick someone they were willing to go along with or face not having them confirmed. The GOP didn't HAVE to filibuster his nominees since they were the majority.

But it had never happened before that either. Clinton had a Democratic majority for his first two years. Carter had a VAST majority in both houses. Not to mention LBJ or JFK. The Republicans never filibustered a judicial nominee during those times. It wasn't because "they were better or smarter or more moral." It was just because the filibuster was seen as something to be used on legislation. Period. The Democrats didn't use it on Reagan or Bush 41 either.

But then Bush 43 got elected and the GOP had the majority of the Senate and SOMEBODY in the Democratic Party decided to change the whole tradition of the Senate and use the filibuster to block nominees. All the "nuclear option" does is change the floor rules. The majority can do that at any time. Just need 51 votes. The change would simply say it that using a filibuster to block a presidential nominee will be ruled as "out of order" and dismissed. It is actually a RETURN to tradition rather than a break with it. The only reason they call it the "nuclear option" is because they expect the Democrats to explode if they do it!

And it would PERFECTLY FINE with me if the GOP had to follow these same rules when they are in the minority. I'm not happy with the Democrats using the filibuster in this way and I wouldn't be any more happy if the GOP was doing it. Let's refine and clarify the rules to avoid this procedural B.S. in the future.

Gregg

 

[Monkeyleg]

Gregg, based on your reply, I'm not confused about the so-called "nuclear option." It is, as I've read, a simple change of rules, although the impact would not be "simple."

The public's approval of congress is already at one of the lowest levels in recent years. If Frist had changed the rules on a filibuster, members of both parties would have suffered, although I think Republicans would have been more damaged.

Something doesn't have to be in writing to be a precedent. As I said, the Senate regard themselves as a gentleman's club, and there are certain things that are not acceptable. If the "nuclear option" had been used, it would be considered acceptable in the future.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Desertdog]

If Frist had changed the rules on a filibuster, members of both parties would have suffered, although I think Republicans would have been more damaged.

Only if you were judging by the screams and howls made by the MSM. If you took a truthful poll, it would probably come out a plus for the change.

As I said, the Senate regard themselves as a gentleman's club, and there are certain things that are not acceptable.

IMO only if it is done by the Republicans. All is fair by the Dems.

 

[Monkeyleg]

Desertdog: "IMO only if it is done by the Republicans. All is fair by the Dems."

True. The Republicans have seized defeat from the jaws of victory for decades, and especially in the last decade.

But there are conservative Republicans, and then there are RINO's. We all know that. There are people with "R's" behind their names who should be tarred and feathered.

Your point about the MSM (mainstream media to folks in North Dakota who don't have to watch it) is valid.

To a point.

The mainstream media would be screaming about Frist "butchering the Constitution," or "doing an end-run around the Constitution," or any number of other ridiculous charges. Charlie Rangle would show up on Hannity and Colmes--with even more pomade than is his custom--to complain that Frist was returning the country to the days of Jim Crow. Ted Kennedy might actually even look good to the public.

Once the furor dies down, the public would accept "nuclear options" as standard fare when it comes to filibusters.

And, seeing as how I think the Democrats have a very good chance of regaining control of congress in 2006 and 2008, I don't like the idea of them being able to point to a Republican majority leader as precedent for changing the senate rules on a filibuster.

 

[Waitone]

Does anyone doubt for a minute that if roles were reversed Democrats would hesitate one skinny Noo Yark minute in igniting the nuke? Not doubt in my feeble mind.

For the longest time court nominees needed a simple majority in the judiciary committee to be reported out for senate vote where the nominee would need a simple majority to be confirmed. The committee reflected the requirements of the senate.

All that changed in the recent past. Now the committee needs a supermajority to be reported out to the senate where a simple majority is needed to confirm. The so-called "Nuclear Option" is to change the rules of the judiciary committee by the senate back to what it was in years past. . .a simple majority vote to report out. Trouble is our illustrious media has garbled reality to the point it is indistinguishable from fiction. The nuclear option would simply restore what was there from the beginning despite the howls of indignation.

Now here is what I want to know <insert loud snare drum rolls>

1>When did the judiciary committee rules change
2>Who changed the rules
3>Why were the rules changed
4>Why has the media, both MSM and New Media, studiously avoided asking or reporting on questions 1, 2, and 3 above.

I am not certain but I highly suspect the rules were changed in the opening years of Bush's term during the time when Hizonor Idiot Senator Trent Lott "negotiated" the power sharing agreement with Democrats. I can easily see Democrats planning ahead and making sure they could gum up the republican works when it came to judicial nominations.

Please, someone tell me I'm wrong. Tell me I'm waaaay off base. Please tell me these hearing have not been classic political theatre designed to hoo-doo the Great Fed Up.

 

[jeff-10]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "nuclear option" has never been used in the Senate before.

No one used to filibuster nominees either. The Senate Democrats decided to change that precedent so why not use the option? Even Robert Bork has a straight up vote.

 

[RealGun]

Now the committee needs a supermajority to be reported out to the senate where a simple majority is needed to confirm. The so-called "Nuclear Option" is to change the rules of the judiciary committee by the senate back to what it was in years past. .

The nuclear option has nothing to do with the Judiciary committee, which operates under simple majority rules and time limits. The majority party is always in the majority on committee. A partisan majority vote is always assured, but it is only a recommendation to the floor or serves to prevent a nominee from advancing (to the floor). Filibusters do not occur in committee.

The minority's last option is to filibuster on the floor. That gives them ultimate control unless the majority voting in unison has 60 seats. If they do not, a bipartisan group with enough minority members wishing to see a filibuster showdown avoided actually control the outcome, able to achieve a 60 vote outcome. Thus we have the "Gang of 14". What that "gang" actually represents is all of the Senate, both partys and an independent versus the usual suspects in the ultra-liberal, obstructionist camp. That adversary group would correspond closely to the 22 that voted against confirmation of John Roberts...oppose the GOP administration no matter what...Kennedy, Biden, Schumer, Feinstein, Durbin, Kerry, Clinton, Inouwe, et al. Feingold breaking ranks (voted for Roberts) is intriguing, but it should not go unnoticed that he is likely to run for President.

 

[Monkeyleg]

"Feingold breaking ranks (voted for Roberts) is intriguing, but it should not go unnoticed that he is likely to run for President."

Let him run all he wants. He makes Kerry look like a conservative.

 

[idakfan]

Question about next Nominee

If the next nominee is not a strict constructionist with a track record, there is no point in voting Republican for president any more. Might as well vote third party. Supreme Court nominees was the only reason I voted for Bush the second time around. In no way is he a conservative regarding issues that count, so all that was left motivating me to vote for him was his promise to appoint strict constructionist SCOTUS justices.

I concur!

There's so much talk about Bush being a Christian and his strong Christian Conservative base so my question is why does Fox News and CNN keep ranting about a "diverse" nominee? This is something a Democratic President would do.

He should pick a pro-gun Conservative Christian for the Supreme Court.

If he doesn't I wouldn't understand why Christians would even support the GOP in the next election if all we're going to get is lip-service.

That's the end of my rant, what do you guys think?

...Also I thought that was weird that Roberts became the Chief Justice, I thought that Scalia would have been bumped up to Chief Justice when Rehnquist passed-away.

 

[Flyboy]

I really couldn't be entirely respectful of government until the Constitution was revisited. I would give States a much smaller role, acknowledging in many ways how the country has changed since its founding. My main concern is that the quality of my US citizenship depends upon in which State I live. The Supreme Court has already blurred the line extensively, but we have never confronted it as it should be by revising the Constitution and having Congress decide how things should be.

And this would be different...how?

Seriously--did you read the Raich verdict? The Feds control everything, even when the states have explicitly said otherwise. Stevens's arrogant comment about "the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress," completely belies the fact that California did exercise the democratic process in this case; Stevens seems content to remove that power from the state, and make it exclusively Federal. Tell me, please, how that doesn't "give States a much smaller role." If anything, we need to give the Feds a much smaller role, and return some power to the states.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

+1 Flyboy.

 

[RealGun]

And this would be different...how?

I would be "respectful of government" when their laws and Court rulings are clearly supported by the Constitution. Instead of making stuff up as they go along, making a mockery of the document, I expect the Courts to demur and for Congress to attempt to amend the Constitution. Instead the Courts are effectively amending the Constitution.

One of the things I want is for the 14A to be a slam dunk, removing States ability to ignore the 2A. That would be a wake up call that they are definitely not independent. Their relationship with the federal government is much different than it was 200 years ago. The Civil War and the income tax pretty much rewrote the book. I certainly wouldn't chuck it all. I just want the Constitution to correspond to reality, chicken or egg.

 

[Desertdog]

If he doesn't I wouldn't understand why Christians would even support the GOP in the next election if all we're going to get is lip-service.

Have you already forgotten about Schumer, Feinstein, Kennedy, Boxer, Hillery and the other Dems. No support for GOP equals support for Dems.

 

[tulsamal]

...Also I thought that was weird that Roberts became the Chief Justice, I thought that Scalia would have been bumped up to Chief Justice when Rehnquist passed-away.

I sure Bush would have been very pleased to have Scalia as Chief Justice but that appointment would have still required Senate approval. And the Democrats would have had a total heart attack. They can just barely keep their "will to live" while knowing that Scalia and Thomas are on the court in the first place; having either one of them as Chief would cause an immediate stroke.

I would say there was a 99% chance of the nuclear option being used if Scalia had been nominated for Chief.

Gregg

 

[RealGun]

I think we will see the nuclear option, because the obstructionist minority will get a chance to say all sorts of vile things in the process. I think the count is four of them running for President.