GOA advises support of filibuster

[RealGun]

I am having a hard time being supportive of the Senate's procedural nonsense. I have an easier time supporting removing some of it. I do not really support Congress being in gridlock. I think the real work is in gaining support for abiding by the Constitution and in gaining consensus about what the Constitution means. Gun advocates will just have to make it their business that anti-gun legislation would simply not get enough votes to pass. If that means ongoing support of a more favorable majority party, so be it.

I notice that Tom Coburn, heavily backed by GOA for election, is not buying it, although I can't say why.

************************
You Guys are Having a Tremendous Impact!
-- More calls needed to save our greatest weapon for
killing gun control

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Wednesday, April 6, 2005

The headline says it all: "Support falters for the 'nuclear
option.'" That was the headline people read in The Washington Times
on March 23.

The article explained how support is fading for eliminating one of
gun owners' greatest legislative weapons -- the filibuster.

On April 3, the New York Times cited the work that Gun Owners of
America is doing in opposing any change to the Senate rules that
would do away with the legislative filibuster.

"In a setback for supporters of the change," the Times wrote,
"Gun
Owners of America... argue that changing the rules to prevent
filibustering nominees would lead to the elimination of legislative
filibusters, which conservatives have relied on to protect gun
rights."

It's true. As recently as last year, pro-gun forces used a
filibuster threat to keep the semi-auto ban from being placed on the
Department of Defense authorization bill. And in the near future,
GOA may be working with pro-gun Senators who would use filibuster
threats to keep gun control amendments off of the gun makers'
protection act.


ENDING FILIBUSTERS = MORE GUN CONTROL

Soon, the showdown will arrive on whether to abolish the U.S. Senate
filibuster in order to expedite the confirmation of seven judicial
nominees. As you may remember, in the absence of the filibuster,
should the Democrats ever gain control of the Senate, there would be
nothing to stop:

* Reenactment of the semi-automatic ban;

* Enactment of the .50 caliber ban;

* Enactment of the gun show ban;

* Enactment of the lock-up-your-safety trigger lock mandate;

* And much, much more.

Now, the anti-filibuster advocates are responding to our arguments
that the abolition of the filibuster will make comprehensive gun
control and registration inevitable. Their answer? "We don't
care."


ENDING FILIBUSTERS: BOTH LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL

Six months ago -- when this battle started -- filibuster opponents
were erroneously raising the possibility that the legislative
filibuster could be saved. But no more.

Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) -- already campaigning for
president -- toured New Hampshire last month with the following
message:

"All of you know the story of the filibusters, the obstruction and
the list of bills we were obstructed on.... Filibusters don't create
jobs. Filibusters don't fix government problems.... [D]emocrats
don't have to agree... ut they do have an obligation to come to
the table, to allow us to vote."

In other words, there is an OBLIGATION -- in Frist's words -- for the
Democrats to stop filibustering LEGISLATION and letting the
Republicans have votes on their legislative agenda.

Notice that we're no longer just talking about ending filibusters of
JUDICIAL nominations. Now we're talking about doing away with
filibusters of LEGISLATION.


ENDING FILIBUSTERS -- IT'LL COME BACK TO "BITE US"

Here's the rub: When liberal, anti-gun Democrats get back into power
and they want to push comprehensive gun bans, gun owners will be the
ones using the filibuster to stop the Brady Bunch's legislative
agenda.

We have done this numerous times over the past 20 years. And yet,
without the legislative filibuster, the "tyranny of the majority"
will run roughshod over gun owners' rights.

Unfortunately, there are many Republicans who can't foresee what the
future might hold. Disgraced Frist aide Manuel Miranda, fired for
rifling the Democrats' computer files, explained on an April 1st
radio broadcast that the Republicans would continue to control the
Senate -- so there was no need (he felt) to worry about the
consequences.

But regardless of who controls the Senate in years to come, Miranda
said in an earlier (Valentine's Day) article in Human Events: "t
is hard to imagine what single piece of legislation conservatives
fear so much that it overcomes concern for the independence of the
judiciary."

Really! How about the registration of all gun owners. How about the
banning of firearms that are currently in American homes. How about
_____________. (You fill in the blank!)

Is it really worth trading away one of our most potent weapons, just
to get judges that may or may not be pro-gun? Remember, seven of the
nine current Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republican
Presidents. Do we have seven pro-gun votes on the Court? How about
seven, even remotely conservative justices on the high court?

We're not even close.

That's why throwing away our legislative arsenal is so dangerous.
The truth is, votes on the Bush administration's judicial nominations
could be forced by strict enforcement of the Senate rules. GOA has
explained how this can be done to legislators and their staffs in the
Senate.

But filibuster opponents feel this would be "too hard" -- compared
with the "simple" procedure for repealing the Senate rules in one
fell swoop.

We realize the Senate filibuster is a tough issue. It is hard to
understand. And many of our good friends -- who haven't used the
filibuster like we have -- don't see why we need it.

But believe us when we say this: If the filibuster is abolished, we
have lost one of our most important weapons against comprehensive gun
control.


ACTION: Another volley of calls and emails is now needed to save the
legislative filibuster. Here’s what needs to be done:

1. Forward this alert to as many people as you can!

2. Please contact your senator immediately. Ask him to oppose the
"nuclear option" and leave the Senate filibuster rules
intact. We're
making headway. But we need to redouble our efforts in these last
days.

You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators a
pre-written e-mail message.

3. See if your Senator is listed below. This target list indicates
Senators who especially need to hear from you. They are either
uncommitted or could easily switch to our side if enough gun owners
contact them. So please make sure you get friends and family to get
in touch with the following:

Lisa Murkowski (AK)
John McCain (AZ)
Richard Lugar (IN)
Jim Bunning (KY)
Mitch McConnell (KY)
Susan Collins (ME)
Olympia Snowe (ME)
Thad Cochran (MS)
Chuck Hagel (NE)
John Sununu (NH)
Mike DeWine (OH)
George Voinovich (OH)
Tom Coburn (OK)
James Inhofe (OK)
Gordon Smith (OR)
Arlen Specter (PA)
Lamar Alexander (TN)
John Warner (VA)

----- Pre-written message -----

Dear Senator:

Increasingly, proponents of the "nuclear option" are making
it clear
that the demise of the legislative filibuster is the inevitable
result of their proposal.

This means that a vote to tamper with the filibuster will make
comprehensive gun control inevitable.

Please do not open this can of worms.

Please oppose the "nuclear option."

Sincerely,


****************************

Streaming Video Update

GOA has recently updated the streaming video section of our website.
At http://www.gunowners.org/svtb.htm you will find numerous
television interviews of GOA spokesmen, all available free of charge.
Recent controversial topics include school shootings, the impact of
the Terrorist Watch List on law-abiding gun owners, and National ID
Cards. Of course, new TV appearances will continue to be added
regularly.

 

[stevelyn]

I agree with GOA. Our so-called "friends" the repugnicans, will not be in power forever. As a matter of fact I think that after Bush's term is over there is going to be some serious house (and senate) cleaning come next election.
You can be assured that when the socialists regain their majority, they will attempt to ramrod onerous legislation through congress. The fillibuster is the only weapon available when you are at a disadvantage.
Personally I prefer congress being in gridlock. They can't hurt us if they can't accomplish anything.

 

[Standing Wolf]

There's a simple, obvious solution: the Republicans need to inform the representatives of the Democratic (sic) party there'll be no more pork for their states and districts until they sit down, shut up, and get with the program.

The problem with the simple, obvious solution, of course, is that if the representatives of the Democratic (sic) party so much as whisper the word "filibuster," the Republicans will immediately hide under their beds in abject terror.

 

[nico]

The problem with the simple, obvious solution, of course, is that if the representatives of the Democratic (sic) party so much as whisper the word "filibuster," the Republicans will immediately hide under their beds in abject terror.

absolutely. I'm just as sick of the Republicans whining about this fake filibuster as I am about the Democrats carrying on with the fake filibuster. I won't even think about supporting changing the rules because of this situation until the Republicans grow some balls and make the Democrats do a real filibuster.

 

[beerslurpy]

The solution is that the republicans need to get 60 seats in the senate and stop whining in the meantime. Taking away filibuster will hurt them in the long run.

 

[nico]

The solution is that the republicans need to get 60 seats in the senate and stop whining in the meantime.

that'll work too, but it won't get Bush's nominations approved in time. IMO, if the republicans forced the dems to do a REAL filibuster, it'd be over in less than a week. Public opinion would quickly shift against the dems.

 

[Standing Wolf]

The solution is that the republicans need to get 60 seats in the senate and stop whining in the meantime.

If the Republicans had 75 seats in the Senate, they'd still be scared silly every time a representative of the Democratic (sic) party so much as whispered the word "filibuster."

No guts. No principles.

 

[RealGun]

Well, part of it is that the majority doesn't want to act in an advise and consent role. They want to discuss it in caucus and have it be a done deal, rubber stamping whoever the President nominates for a judgeship. On the other hand, I very much object to the minority party being in opposition just because they are in the minority. They should cut the crap and just do the right thing by individual, not party, move on, and get some work done.

It's very embarrassing to watch the Senate on TV. They don't do squat except trade insincere compliments. Oh sure, they talk about an issue, but whether or not it will pass or come up for a vote has already been decided.

Why do they even need to spend valuable time on judge nominations, when anyone outside paying even slight attention knows that the President's party will support his nominees and ALL of the minority party Senators will oppose, playing as dirty as they can possibly manage. If the Senate does nothing but vote partisan, they should lose their advise and consent role, frankly.

 

[TheBluesMan]

Traditionally during a filibuster, all other Senate business comes to an immediate halt while a Senator, or group of Senators, holds the floor by speaking without ceasing. But a "gentlemen's agreement" between the parties in the 1980s allows the Senate to continue to address other legislation and nominations while stalling only the controversial issue in question. All the minority party must do to block a vote is to announce that they are filibustering the issue, and the majority party has to start counting to 60 (3/5 of the Senate).

What Frist should do is to throw the "gentleman's agreement" that Senate Democrats and Republicans made right into the trash. Since Senate Democrats don't really have to hold the floor by speaking continuously, they can easily block any legislation or nomination they don't like. This has led all controversial legislation and nominations to require a 3/5 majority to pass: a de facto minority veto. According to Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, a judicial nominee is to be approved with the "Advice and Consent of the Senate". Consent can only be reached if they vote.

There is a balance to the "pre-agreement" way of conducting Senate business. If the rules of the Senate as written in 1806 were enforced today, Senate Republicans would have to weigh how important the nomination was versus conducting other Senate business. The public would perceive the Democrats as obstructionists for blocking a judicial nomination at the expense of more pressing national needs. In both cases, the scrutiny of the voting public would be upon them.

According to Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #77, "The blame of a bad nomination would fall upon the President singly and absolutely. The censure of rejecting a good one would lie entirely at the door of the Senate;"

Imagine watching Democrats on C-SPAN every night speechifying on irrelevant points just to delay the nomination process. Consider how Charles Schumer would look reading from the New York City phone book. Picture Hillary Clinton tallying up the names of "people of interest" who mysteriously died during the Clinton years. She might even read a list of the women that her husband has "philandered with" over the years.

It is despicable that the Democrats are using this tactic to block the approval of many fine judges. They would not be able to do so if they actually had to hold the floor. The public outcry at the use of this delaying tactic would be overwhelming. The Democrats would be forced to allow the nomination to come to a vote.

When the Senate votes, it is our Constitutional Republic at work. It is the will of the people being expressed through their duly elected representatives. What is happening now in the Senate equates to giving a special interest group control of the outcome instead of the people. With the impending retirements of Supreme Court Justices O'Connor, Stevens and Rhenquist, and only a slight Republican majority in the Senate, this prospect is chilling.

 

[Rebar]

What Frist should do is to throw the "gentleman's agreement" that Senate Democrats and Republicans made right into the trash.

Brilliant idea! That would really put the Democrats in a lose-lose situation, they'd fold like a cheap card table, and we'd get our constructionalist judges in, which is our ultimate hope for RKBA.