Senators compromise on filibusters

[gldstwmn]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/...ght/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A bipartisan group of senators reached an agreement after days of talks to avert a showdown Tuesday over President Bush's judicial nominees, Sen. John McCain announced Monday evening.

Standing with a group of 14 senators, the Arizona Republican said the seven Republicans and seven Democrats had brokered a deal to "avert a crisis" over the nominees.

Democrats filibustered 10 of Bush's 218 nominees in his first term, saying they were too radical for a lifetime appointment to the bench.

Forty-four Democrats and one independent in the current Senate have stuck to that position.

Bush has renominated seven of those judges -- including Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen. Senate debate began last week on Owen's nomination to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Unable to garner the 60 votes necessary to end a filibuster -- a form of extended debate that has been part of Senate rules since the early 19th century -- Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, has put into motion what some call the "nuclear option."

Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, moved Friday for cloture to end debate on Owen's nomination. The vote is set for Tuesday. (Full story)

If the cloture vote were to fail, Frist would use some parliamentary maneuvering, with help from Vice President Dick Cheney as the body's presiding officer, to get a vote on a procedural motion that effectively would limit debate on a judicial nominee, according to a scenario described by Senate sources cited in The Washington Post.

Such a procedural motion would not be subject to debate and presumably would pass with a simple majority of 51 votes, instead of the three-fifths supermajority required for cloture on a filibuster.

Once that happens, the Senate would set a time to vote on Owen's nomination, which would require only a simple majority for confirmation.

The "nuclear" aspect of the scenario is that it effectively would circumvent a Senate rule that requires a two-thirds vote of 67 to change a rule.

If the Republican majority eliminated the filibuster, Democrats threatened to use Senate rules to push their agenda and disrupt the GOP's -- effectively slowing the chamber's business to a crawl.

Earlier Monday, Bush called for the full Senate to vote on his judicial picks, saying his nominees deserve "a fair hearing."

"I expect them to get an up-or-down vote. That's what I expect," Bush said at a news conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. "And I think the American people expect that as well."

Bush said his philosophy in selecting nominees has been been consistent.

"My job is to pick people who will interpret the Constitution, not use the bench from which to write law," Bush said.

The nominees under consideration have been tapped for federal appellate courts. But Supreme Court nominations -- including the chief justice post -- are likely at stake down the road.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

"My job is to pick people who will interpret the Constitution, not use the bench from which to write law," Bush said.

What an a$$, I mean I guess those pronciples do not hold true for the Republican appointed judge in the Terri Schiavo case who followed the MOTHER FU*&ING LETTER of the law - W just could not abide that - and that a$$hole Delay effectively called for someone to lynch that and other judges

bad night can ya tell

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

What an a$$, I mean I guess those pronciples do not hold true for the Republican appointed judge in the Terri Schiavo case who followed the MOTHER FU*&ING LETTER of the law - W just could not abide that - and that a$$hole Delay effectively called for someone to lynch that and other judges

bad night can ya tell

I'm just wondering if Pryor, Owens and Brown are going to be confirmed tomorrow.
This isn't good for Frist. Hee.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Well I think a compromise is always good...although I wonder how the language in this is worded...because I know they said they compromised to NOT use the filibuster except in "extreme circumstances" I think it will be a big debate to define EXTREME...One Republican on the news mentioned that this deal leaves the door open for the nuclear option if the filibuster is "abused" in the future...So will the Republicans go back on their compromise if Democrats filibuster AT ALL? I mean it's all kinda suspicious to me...

I would have almost rather had the Democrats not agree on any deal, even if it meant the Republicans changing the rules...I dunno

Chris

[macfanken]

Hmmm... maybe I'm missing something, but how is this a compromise? Basically the Dems agreed not to filibuster and the Rethuglicans agree not to use their "Nuclear Option" (nice choice of words) to do away with fillibusters. It seems to me like the Rethugs basically cried until they got their way. Am I wrong?

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Originally Posted by macfanken

Hmmm... maybe I'm missing something, but how is this a compromise? Basically the Dems agreed not to filibuster and the Rethuglicans agree not to use their "Nuclear Option" (nice choice of words) to do away with fillibusters. It seems to me like the Rethugs basically cried until they got their way. Am I wrong?

Well it is sorta compromise since the Dems only agreed to not filibuster 3 nominees, they made no agreements on others--and Republicans agreed to not use the "nuclear option"

Chris

[strandinthewind]

I agree - the two will not get a vote but the other three will. Personally, I think the D's should have stood their ground and refused all five. I think the sooner they show backbone - the better off they will be because this compromise in the end is essentially meaningless except IMO to show that the D's seem to think they have no chips to bargain with.

[macfanken]

Oh, I didn't realize there were 5, I thought there were only 3 nominees. The big fight will be for the Supreme Court... they can't back down then.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I agree - the two will not get a vote but the other three will. Personally, I think the D's should have stood their ground and refused all five. I think the sooner they show backbone - the better off they will be because this compromise in the end is essentially meaningless except IMO to show that the D's seem to think they have no chips to bargain with.

I agree to an extent---but do they really have any chips to bargain with otherwise? Sure they could "slow down Senate business to a crawl" but that would look unfavorable on them for elections--so they would never do it...Had they not accepted it , I do wonder tho if the Republicans would have had the votes to even enact the Nuclear option--possibly the reason the Republicans decided to "compromise" was because they didnt feel they had the votes?

Chris

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ShangriLaTroubl

I agree to an extent---but do they really have any chips to bargain with otherwise? Sure they could "slow down Senate business to a crawl" but that would look unfavorable on them for elections--so they would never do it...Had they not accepted it , I do wonder tho if the Republicans would have had the votes to even enact the Nuclear option--possibly the reason the Republicans decided to "compromise" was because they didnt feel they had the votes?

Chris

All I know is Rove wins again. He took a situation where all but a handful have been approved and turned it into the D's are anti - religion and obstructionists and, once again, the D's just took it. I mean could you see Bill Clinton taking this crap - I think not.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by macfanken

Hmmm... maybe I'm missing something, but how is this a compromise? Basically the Dems agreed not to filibuster and the Rethuglicans agree not to use their "Nuclear Option" (nice choice of words) to do away with fillibusters. It seems to me like the Rethugs basically cried until they got their way. Am I wrong?

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=47847

Dobson Blasts Filibuster 'Betrayal'

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo., May 23 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Focus on the Family Action Chairman Dr. James C. Dobson today issued the following statement, upon the announcement by members of the U.S. Senate that a "compromise" had been reached on the filibuster issue:

"This Senate agreement represents a complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats. Only three of President Bush’s nominees will be given the courtesy of an up-or-down vote, and it's business as usual for all the rest. The rules that blocked conservative nominees remain in effect, and nothing of significance has changed. Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist would never have served on the U. S. Supreme Court if this agreement had been in place during their confirmations. The unconstitutional filibuster survives in the arsenal of Senate liberals.

"We are grateful to Majority Leader Frist for courageously fighting to defend the vital principle of basic fairness. That principle has now gone down to defeat. We share the disappointment, outrage and sense of abandonment felt by millions of conservative Americans who helped put Republicans in power last November. I am certain that these voters will remember both Democrats and Republicans who betrayed their trust."

----

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by ShangriLaTroubl

Well it is sorta compromise since the Dems only agreed to not filibuster 3 nominees, they made no agreements on others--and Republicans agreed to not use the "nuclear option"

Chris

The full Senate still has to have an up or down vote on the nominees and according to Senator Lindsay Graham, R-South Carolina at least one of the three will not make it through the up or down vote.
Also, Graham basically gave the finger to the White House in his speech with the gang of fourteen when he said the White House would have to work with them on the judicial nominees.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by ShangriLaTroubl

I do wonder tho if the Republicans would have had the votes to even enact the Nuclear option--possibly the reason the Republicans decided to "compromise" was because they didnt feel they had the votes?

Chris

I'd bet my house they didn't.

[gldstwmn]

Links to Graham's comments:
http://www.edwardsdavid.com/media/cn...m_050523-01.rm

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=47847

Dobson Blasts Filibuster 'Betrayal'

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo., May 23 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Focus on the Family Action Chairman Dr. James C. Dobson today issued the following statement, upon the announcement by members of the U.S. Senate that a "compromise" had been reached on the filibuster issue:

"This Senate agreement represents a complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats. Only three of President Bush’s nominees will be given the courtesy of an up-or-down vote, and it's business as usual for all the rest. The rules that blocked conservative nominees remain in effect, and nothing of significance has changed. Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist would never have served on the U. S. Supreme Court if this agreement had been in place during their confirmations. The unconstitutional filibuster survives in the arsenal of Senate liberals.

"We are grateful to Majority Leader Frist for courageously fighting to defend the vital principle of basic fairness. That principle has now gone down to defeat. We share the disappointment, outrage and sense of abandonment felt by millions of conservative Americans who helped put Republicans in power last November. I am certain that these voters will remember both Democrats and Republicans who betrayed their trust."

----

I can hear the ulcers in those Dobson quotes!