| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front | |
| Frist to seek rules change to end filibusters on judges | |
| 2003-05-09 | |
| Republicans plan to begin the process today of using their so-called "nuclear option" (so called by both sides because it has the potential to wreak havoc in the Senate and even further intensify partisan discord) 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. A nuclear option which will wreak havoc and intensify partisan discord ... Gads, I hope none of the poor widdie Senators get a case of the vapors over it
| |
| Posted by:John Phares |
| #13 No book, and Fred moves, edits, deletes at his pleasure. He pays the bills. Take no offense JP :-) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-05-09 19:44:05 |
| #12 Well then, having read Fred's comments elsewhere about the intent of this blog, I can see why some might take exception to articles that don't deal with terrorism being posted to this section. Will somebody please direct me to the rule book, lest I violate other Rantburgian taboos? |
| Posted by: John Phares 2003-05-09 18:05:25 |
| #11 Colorado Conservative: I believe it may have been LiberalHawk who posted an article along with some disapproving comments about the content of other articles submitted to this section a few hours ago. In response, I humbly asked for any refined sort to show me the section to which I should have posted instead (I even listed them all, since none made more sense to me than this one), but it seems that the article and my heartfelt request for enlightenment have somehow vanished, leaving me none the wiser about the particulars of my posting faux pas. I am, needless to say, as wounded by this as by the impression others often seem to have of me that I am, somehow, a person who uses sarcasm as a rhetorical device. |
| Posted by: John Phares 2003-05-09 17:33:51 |
| #10 OldSpook - Miller has announced that he is retiring and not running for reelection in '04. Hopefully the GOP can pick up his seat. Even if they do it was nice having a Democrat side with the GOP on most matters - helped defuse the "partasinship" argument against the GOP |
| Posted by: AWW 2003-05-09 15:39:01 |
| #9 I believe the new Democratic criterion for "extremist" is "anyone young and intelligent enough to be a Supreme Court appointee soon". |
| Posted by: someone 2003-05-09 14:44:53 |
| #8 JohnPhares: I'm surprised LiberalHawk hasn't called you on posting something like this which is not related to the war on terror. You see, liberals - at heart - simply can not tolerate hearing views contrary to theirs. |
| Posted by: ColoradoConservative 2003-05-09 14:43:42 |
| #7 Snellenr - yup things will change Nov 2004. All indications are they will not need this rules after that point as they pick up a net gain of 4 to 5 seats, extending their majority to 55 or so. There are far more Dem seats up, and far more of them vulnerable in 2004, do the math. If the Repubs can pull this off, they ough tot ask Zell Miller if he wants to change parties like Nighthorse Campbell (the only Harley riding biker in the Senate) did out here in Colorado. The Dem party has changed and left people like Miller out in the cold. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2003-05-09 14:15:31 |
| #6 The Dems have pushed the Packs to this, and are solely to blame for the rule change. They've dumbed-down their "extremist" criteria to anyone who believes in state's rights and might not pass a litmus test barrage on abortion - it is the law of the land, and just assuring that you would obey that law is not enough to the Schumers and Leahys and Neas of the left |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-05-09 09:24:25 |
| #5 I believe this is actually the tactical nuclear option -- the strategic weapon would be a ruling by the chair that items on the Senate's executive calendar can't be filibustered. Since this is the Senate equivalent of All your base are belong to us, they're reluctant to use it -- particularly since things will change in November 2004... |
| Posted by: snellenr 2003-05-09 09:21:12 |
| #4 The rational for Senate confirmation was to remove politics from the process. Well, that's point is now long dead. Its time for the final democratization of our own government, in the spirit of the XVII Amendment which made Senators directly elected. Its time for the people to confirm nominations as well. 1. The President shall have the power to nominate Judges of the Supreme Court, Districts and Appellates of the United States with confirmation by the consent of the governed. The Senate no longer retains the authority under Article II, Section 2 to confirm these nominations. 2. Nominees will stand for confirmation on the date of election by a vote of the people. The date of election will correspond to the nearest date of regular voting, not to be less than 90 days from the date of nomination. 3. The confirmation vote will be conducted only in the area or region in which the judicial nominee will have jurisdiction. Nominees for Supreme Court will be subject to national confirmation. Make this an issue for the next national election. See who really trusts the people and who only seeks to rule the people. |
| Posted by: Don 2003-05-09 09:16:51 |
| #3 Robert Byrd will stain his sheets over this one. |
| Posted by: eric 2003-05-09 07:49:29 |
| #2 Bah. This'll be filibustered. Nevertheless, I agree with Douglas that this is long overdue: I thought the Consitution was the supreme law of the land, not Robert's Rules of Order or senatorial operating rules.... |
| Posted by: Ptah 2003-05-09 07:13:06 |
| #1 This is long overdue. Besides, the democrats went nuclear a long, long time ago. |
| Posted by: Douglas De Bono 2003-05-09 06:45:16 |