From The Washington Post:
Vice President Dick Cheney said Friday he would vote in the Senate to stop filibusters of judicial nominees if given the chance. That means President Bush is breaking his word to stay out of the fight over Senate rules, Democratic leader Harry Reid responded.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., wants to change Senate rules by banning judicial filibusters—a tactic in which opponents can prevent a vote on a nomination with just 41 votes in the 100-member body. Minority Democrats have used the tactic to block confirmation votes on 10 of Bush’s appeals court choices.
Republicans hold 55 seats in the 100-member Senate, but a vote on changing the rules is expected to be close. Cheney would be able to vote only if there is a tie.
“Let me emphasize, the decision about how to proceed will be made by the Republican leadership in the Senate,” Cheney said in a speech to the Republican National Lawyers Association at the National Press Club. “But if the Senate majority decides to move forward and if the issue is presented to me in my elected office as president of the Senate and presiding officer, I will support bringing those nominations to the floor for an up-or-down vote.”
Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said the White House was “shattering the checks and balances in our government in order to put radical judges on the bench.” He said Bush was making it clear he no longer wanted to work with Democrats.
While I’m not quite sure Republicans should be going straight to the “nuclear” (or, if you prefer, “Constitutional”) option in order to circumvent the threat of Democratic judicial filibusters—personally, I would rather they force Senate Democrats to, you know, actually filibuster, complete with cots and toothbrushes and Teddy Kennedy taking his gin and juice nightcap right there on the Senate floor—I do find it remarkable that anyone who’s been paying any attention at all to this process would take seriously Reid’s hyperbolic characterization of the blocked nominees.
Which is why instead of stupidly aligning himself with James Dobson, et al, in an ill-advised and hamfisted attempt to fight back rhetorically against the lies and character assassinations coming from Democrats like Reid, Senate majority leader Bill Frist should be engaging in an all-out media offensive, touting the qualifications of Bush’s nominees while simultaneousluy letting the American people know just precisely what the Democrats are willing to assert is “radical” these days. He should daily be asserting that the ABA has found these candidates qualified and highly qualified, and that the Democrats have approved only 67% of Bush’s appellate court nominees—a number that is unacceptable given that 10 additional nominees have the votes necessary for confirmation should a vote ever take place.
After that, Frist and Senate Republicans should force John Kerry to peel the cucumber slices from his eyes and take to the Senate floor for a few nights in a silk dressing gown and conditioning face mask to explain to the American people why it is so damn essential to block bright and highly qualified individuals from federal judicial service that Senate Democrats are willing to subvert decades and decades of tradition. Frist should demand that Chuck Shumer explain to the American people why he thinks it appropriate to ask candidates how they will rule in advance before he agrees to give them an up or down vote. Because let’s face it: it ain’t really dangerous to slip your hand up Jenny the cheerleader’s cute little skirt if you know in advance that she’s “so totally into it.”
Only after the Republicans take these steps should they attempt to pass the nuclear option. And attempt it they should. With my blessing.
But put in the work, Frist, et al,. Because if you do, the American people will commiserate. And in the meantime, knock off the “against people of faith” strategy. Such histrionics will only backfire. Trust me on this.
But Jeff, you’re wrong as to how an actual filibuster would work out. In an actual filibuster, the Republicans would be the ones who would have to maintain a quorum (50 senators + the 1 speaking presumably). The Democrats on the other hand could go home sleep normally and keep only one Senator at the chamber, that one gets tired, a replacement Democrat has to start speaking again, with 40 Ds, each Senator would speak for an hour and presumably get at least 20 off. For the Republicans with 55 Senators, they’d have to keep 50 on the floor, only letting 5 take a break at any give time. Presumably that means sitting in the chamber for something like 20 hours, and then getting 4 off, to run home and take a shower or something.
The filibuster inconviences the Majority hugely, the minority less so, they only have to keep one person there yammering probably 2 though because if the yammering stops the majority can close out debate. That doesn’t change the calculus of listening to Dobson or not, I’m just pointning out that it makes “the break the filibuster the old-fashioned way” very hard to do.
That’s the point though, Joel—why I said that Republicans need to put in the work if they want Americans to commiserate. Because willingness to accept such an inconvenience suggests sincerity and resolve. Though the media coverage would focus on the speakers and their reasons for filibustering.
The prospect of Teddy Kennedy drinking a night cap and John Kerry in his nightgown—those were just mental images I was fond of.
That last sentence proves that you are a very, very sick man, Jeff. Please, seek professional help.
What would be the chances of you running for office?
Actually, forget that. Don’t know what I was thinking. Bad idea – BAD, BAD, BAD!
I totally agree.I want to see this filibuster.I want to hear those blowhards go on and on. Republicans drive me crazy on PR sometimes. They just don’t get it. They have to start looking at how “It looks.” Let the Dems filibuster. THEY will look like idiots.
You are dead on with this one, Jefe.
The people who are screaming to go nuclear don’t understand one basic political concept. Even if you are right, it doesn’t matter if you communicate it badly and the public shits all over it. See “1995, government shutdown” for a previous example.
Hmmm.
It’s never pretty seeing Republicans in the senate getting bitch-slapped by Democrats, but it does tend to happen a lot so I’ve gotten used to it.
Frankly someone should convince Frist that he’s better off being a doctor. As a Senate Majority Leaders he’s a complete failure.
“force John Kerry to peel the cucumber slices from his eyes and take to the Senate floor for a few nights in a silk dressing gown and conditioning face mask”…
And this would be the black silk gown, the one which on the front has “#1 Love Torpedo” emblazoned in shimmering gold thread.
What fun we could have with a DEPENDS-O-METER watching Senator KKK Byrd’s adult diapers FILL ibuster if this were actually one for reallies.
Fair enough Jeff, I can’t argue with that, and I actually agree wth you that I think that’s the step Republicans ought to take. But you won’t see any Democrats in their caps and Nightgowns. Just the Republicans…the Republicans are the ones who’d have to pull out the cots. So unfortunately you won’t get to see Kennedy drinking a night cap and Kerry in a nightgown, but I do agree with your overall point, I got lost in specifics.
Jeff,
Sorry to disagree with you on this, but it’s not the Republicans that were the first to raise the issue of religion. This issue is NOT “histrionics.†I refer you to the hearings for William Pryor in 2003. Kay Daly in the WSJ’s Opinion Journal summarized the thrust of the questioning this way:
Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, the most recent Daniel to face the hungry lions, has made the “mistake” of not distancing himself from his faith. In a recent confirmation hearing for Mr. Pryor, a nominee to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) said plainly that Mr. Pryor’s deeply held personal convictions as a pro-life Catholic simply would not be left at the courthouse door. In other words, being a Catholic is just fine if you are Sen. Leahy or Sen. Kennedy and selectively follow the doctrines of the faith. But if you actually practice Catholic teaching, you need not apply for a federal judgeship.
[snip]
It cannot be mere coincidence that Mr. Holmes–as well as fellow disputed nominees like Mr. Pryor, Carolyn Kuhl (in the Ninth Circuit), Bob Conrad (eastern district of North Carolina) and three of the four stalled nominees from Michigan (Sixth Circuit)–is a practicing Catholic. For Catholics, Purgatory may very well be the judicial nominations process. Then again, Charles Pickering, a nominee for the Fifth Circuit who once served as president of the Mississippi Southern Baptist Convention, and Priscilla Owen, a filibustered Fifth Circuit nominee and Episcopalian Sunday school teacher, are also under attack.
If it is your contention that Christians should just shut up and take it, let’s hear the reasons why.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/latimests/20050422/ts_latimes/2evangelicalswanttostripcourtsfunds
Moneyrunner–
I did not say Christians “should just shut up and take it.” What I said was, the Senate Majority leader should not be aligning himself with James Dobson, et al., or arguing that Democrats are against people of faith, because the perception such an alignment creates will be exploited by the Dems (indeed, it already IS being exploited by Dems), and will weaken the cause of getting the President’s nomination through inasmuch as it will reinforce a connection between religious zealotry and the judiciary, which is just what Democrats want to do.
Instead, I’ve argued that Frist should force the actual filibustering of these nominees and go on the offensive, challenging the Democrats on their characterization of these 10 federal appellate court nominees as “radical” by touting their previous experience, their ABA ratings, and their (in many cases) bi-partisan support among Democrats not currently playing Senate obstructionist.
My post was about strategy. It had virtually nothing to do with religion.
Hmmm.
Interestingly this is almost a recap of an earlier discussion on the differences between conservatives and libertarians, not that I want to refight that debate though.
Frankly I’ve pointed out before that the current GOP has almost completely abandoned all conservative issues with the nomination of conservative judges being the last one. And so far they’ve shown a total unwillingness to actually get it done, which leads me to believe that they really don’t want to do it. Instead they want to keep this issue alive until the fundraising season begins for 2006.
Heck let’s look at the numbers shall we? 200+ judges put up for nomination and 10 are conservative?
Yeah. Can you just **feel** the frisson? The semi-demi-hemi-cyclatic shudder of orgiastic monastic mono-madness? Now that’s a friggin mandate that is!
I think the GOP has betrayed conservatives and I don’t plan to support the GOP any longer. If they start actually, you know, accomplishing things on conservative issues then I’ll reconsider.
IMHO the GOP has gotten a taste of conservative money and energy and want more of it, but without actually having to do anything. Considering how many conservatives I know of with the same feeling, I think 2006 is going to be an interesting year.
So, ed … who you going to vote for? Independents? Interesting .. an independent republic. IMHO, more than two parties guarantees that you would be ruled by about 30% of “something” at the polls. My advice … don’t go there!
So Jeff, what about the previous filibusters and the non stop jarring about them that went on just a short while in the past? I quite distinctly remember all the Republicans on non stop media overload – especially regarding Estrada (He’s answered all questions! He’s eminently qualified!). Seemed 24×7.
And no one really seemed to care. No massive upwelling of outrage from the man on the street.
I guess that is due to the massive super media army that the liberals control which made the whole right look like spoiled, greedy kid screaming that they haven’t got absolutely everything.
I think the reason why the leaders of your party have decided to align themselves with these guys and start dealing the religious heathen cards to the (oh so powerful) liberals is that they are betting that the same chirping of crickets, yawns and clearing of the throats will meet the filibusters.
They need Dobbson, et.al. Without them, they lose.
And us liberals will still have our army of super hero journalists ready to twist every word of the designated right wing spin meisters who fume at the mouth at the outlandish use of parliamentary procedure by the minority (super) party.
Remember, we’re much, much more politically savvy, we own all three branches of government and we completely own the media. You’re fighting against a political enemy of extraordinary magnitude.
I don’t think you’re right, Hal. I think the Senate Republicans HAVE to make the Dems actually filibuster—and make a really good faith effort to appeal to the American people—before bringing out the nuclear option.
And for the record, I was appalled (and still am) at what the Democrats did to Estrada. In fact, it was at that point that I recognized that they were more interested in power than they were in any kind of compromise. For my money, one of the most shameful moments for Democrats in the last 20 years—and there are plenty to choose from.
Well Jeff, luckily the liberals not counting on your blessings to verify our beliefs.
Anywho, it’s clear that – rightly or wrongly – the right’s leadership has made the political calculation that they can’t win on this, so they have to make it a religious issue and bring in the big guns. I think it’s sweet that you want to make sure the democrats are humiliated before resorting to the tyranny of the majority.
Still, Bush is a lame duck and will only get weaker as time moves forward – the 60 days of social security surreality certainly seems to have the buzzards circling. Arnie is on the ropes and Iraq certainly still hasn’t lived up to the promise of the purple finger.
I think they’re thinking “it’s now or never”.
And they need the religious right to do it.
Humiliated? No. I want them exposed as the calculating obstructionists they are.
Well, seems to me I remember one guy named Newt who seemed to be quite the obstructionist.
Of course the minority is obstructionist. I’m sure – if we don’t switch from a democracy to a theocracy – that when the democrats are in power you’ll be on the front line of obstructionism.
It’s the American (democratic) way.
Our system is designed this way to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Something that the right seems to have completely forgotten.
I haven’t forgotten at all. I don’t want to do away with the filibuster. At the same time, what the Democrats are doing with the judicial nominees is unprecedented and flies in the face of tradition. That is a fact. So for me, there’s nothing more to talk about but what the appropriate way to overcome it is.
So. Lot’s of things are unprecedented. And tradition isn’t exactly a suicide pact. That argument may work for those in the cheap seats (though I doubt it), but it falls flat on the main gallery.
I mean, boo hoo. So you don’t get absolutely everything you want. Be a man.
I do find it quite fascinating that y’all think the richest, most powerful nation on earth has been brought down by the horrible liberal judges, liberal regulations and above all liberal taxes.
Man, we are good.
Okay. Well, then, Republicans have my blessing to do away with the fillibuster. After all, not a suicide pact and all that.
Anyway, I tried to engage in some intelligent conversation, but you seem bent on making it into another tedious hyper-partisan pissing contest, replete with hyperbolic generalizations and cliched caricatures, so have at it. Whack yourself off here in the comments. I’ll go watch a movie or something.
Well, the nuclear option and bringing out Dobbson, et.al. seems pretty damn hyper partisan to me.
Just saying.
Right. Except I wrote about how Frist’s hitching of the Republican wagon to Dobson was a bad idea, and how the nuclear option should only be used after other less drastic avenues have been exhausted.
Hellblazer, make no mistake about one thing. It is the Democrats who are making this a religious issue. The Republicans are getting called on it, of course, but it is the Democrats who refuse to have judical nominees in key positions that are religious. It is as simple as that.
Hmmm.
“So, ed … who you going to vote for? Independents? Interesting .. an independent republic. IMHO, more than two parties guarantees that you would be ruled by about 30% of “something†at the polls. My advice … don’t go there!”
*shrug* I might do a write in of “Bill the Cat”.
It’s too soon to tell, but I won’t be voting for a Republican at any level in 2006. No money, no time and no votes. If the GOP won’t represent me, then I’m not going to support them.
code: written.
So let it be written, so let it be done!
Jeff, you have a difference in tactics, not strategy. You don’t disagree with the highly partisan goal – absolute domination.
All you’re really worried about is the plan backfiring.
No, I have a different strategy that uses alternative tactics to achieve a similar goal—the seating of judges. I’m not interested in domination at all. I’m interested in seating a particular kind of constructionist judge. I worry about the Frist plan backfiring because I want the judges to get an up or down vote and not have their characters maligned by a bunch of grandstanding politicians.
That you even suggest I’m after domination speaks to the kind of cartoon politics you like to engage in. Sometimes that’s fun. But not on this issue.
Domination in the sense of getting your way 100%. I’ll agree you’re not for theistic domination. But you sure as heck are trying to dominate the court.
I guess I should have used a different word to avoid offending your delicate sensitivities and prompting you to flip me into your garbage bin.
BTW, just heard Biden on This Week talk about Justice Fortas. You might want to read up about the affair with respect to precedent and tradition of filibustering judicial appointments.
Uh, you do know that Fortas was unders suspicion of financial impropriety, right? And that he was already a justice? Here are a few links.
Christ, did you just now find this Democratic talking point? Fortas would have lost a floor vote; and his opponents insisted they weren’t engaging in a filibuster.
Oh. And I’ll toss this in just as a reminder:
Regardless, there was a judicial filibuster and it is not without precedent.
Can’t argue with logic like that.