Senate GOP Looking To Prevent Filibusters

[Tab]

First, Senate Republicans must make sure the new chairman of the Judiciary Committee is on their side.

Then they have to take on the other side while five senators short of a filibuster-proof majority.

The latter will make the former seem like a friendly chat. But fresh off a big Election Day boost, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., is warning Democrats of the worst.

"One way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end," he told the Federalist Society last week. "The Senate must do what is good, what is right, what is reasonable and what is honorable."

Senate rules require 60 votes to end debate on most measures. Budget bills are the sole exception. That means the minority party can effectively kill most measures with as few as 41 votes.

The tactic, known as a filibuster, has been used by Democrats to block 10 of President Bush's nominees to federal appeals courts. It looks likely to keep Bush from putting his preferred picks on the Supreme Court.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/general01.asp?v=11/16

[LynnTheDem]

1. And REPUBLICANS filibustered FAR MORE TIMES against Dems

than Dems have EVER filibustered against rethugs.

Just another of them FACTS that show what lousy rotten lying cry-baby whining hypocritical lying assholes rightwingnuts are. ALL OF THEM.

[truthisfreedom]

2. 8^)

[alittlelark]

9. Yeah, what Lynn said!!!!

:-)

[StopThief]

16. You're obviously not talking about judges. Do you. . .

happen to have stats to back that up on filibusters in general. They would certainly make good talking points.

[Clarkie1]

3. If they try to kill the filibuster, I say all the dems talk a long walk

for two years.

[intheflow]

10. Like the Dems in Texas who left the state over redistricting?

I've thought of that, too.

But that probably wouldn't win us any votes in 2006. <sigh>

[MrUnderhill]

17. Is the a quorum requirement in the US Senate?

And how many does it take?

[MallRat]

20. 51.

If the Senate manages to change the rules governing filibusters, the Democrats are going to be completely irrelevant for the next two years.

What reason will there be for Republicans to compromise? Negotiate? Find common ground? They won't have to.

-MR

[MrUnderhill]

21. They won't be able to go THAT far.

I think they're threatening to end the ability to filibuster judges (a questionable but usefull practice to begin with).

They won't end the filibuster as it is used for legislation.


I don't even expect the first option to happen. We're likely to cut a deal in exchange for committee structure compromises.

[intheflow]

23. What reason for the Republicans to compromise?

I think there are many in the Republican party who held their noses and voted for Bush (just as many people held their noses and voted for Kerry). I'm sure that many Republican members of congress understand this. Indeed, at the RNC in the NYTimes there was a full page ad by 20-30 Republican politicians calling their party away from the RW extreme. Check out this article from The Nation (reprinted at the Common Dreams web site): http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1031-30.htm

That's the slim glimmer of hope I can offer!

[Paul Hood]

4. If they get rid of the filibuster there's

no reason to have a Senate. It's just another body where a simple majority rules.

[Art_from_Ark]

6. That's what they want it to be

just a goddam rubber-stamp operation

[baby_bear]

7. preventing the majority from tyrannizing the minority

Have they forgotten the founding principles of this Republic?

Or do they just want to change the rules while they hold all the pieces on the board?

These are NOT patriots. They are oligarchic fascist plutocrats.

so there

s_m

P.S. One only has to look at Iraq to understand this lesson, i.e., the fears of the minority Sunnis of an election to be dominated by the Shiites.

[blurp]

14. The simple 51% rule is why we have the division we do now

I agree with you.

In fact, I think most votes should require super-majorities. If 51% is all it takes to win, you can be sure the other 49% are going to be screwed.

60% or higher makes sure everyone is on the same page.

[baby_bear]

24. Yes, blurp, and isn't this why the filibuster should survive in the Senate

The Repugs want to get rid of it NOW (how convenient) for presidential appointees. Look at the House if you want to see how a simle mamority smashes the minorities totally.

Sorry. I did not mean to lecture you. I am just so angry that people in this country don't realize how majorities are NOT simply the best way to rule. Super-majorities, as you say, have their place, for a good reason.

Thanks for your comment and sorry for my outburst.

s_m

[MaineYooper]

5. it would never occur to them

to end the threat of filibuster by convincing * to nominate reasonable candidates, now would it?

[Journeyman]

11. Touché!. . .

I like the way you think, MaineYooper. . .

[Norquist Nemesis]

8. Given the state of political debate

in the context of the past four years, it seems to me that Republicans are looking for populist support to just let the minority go home. Screw the folks that voted those disgusting liberals into office. :grr:

BTW, did the Federalist Society manage to get the entire Bush cabinet and staffers for this little gathering? Didn't I read recently that Rove and at least one other junta member gave a speech as well?

[CityDem]

12. The harsh reality - the filibusters are over

The repubs could not end the filibusters in the last term because they did not have the 60 votes. Also, they could not use the parliamentary move known as the nuclear option because they lacked the 51 votes to uphold this parliamentary ruling -- senators like Snowe, Specter, and Chafee opposed this approach. Well, this is going to change with the new makeup of the senate. With 55 repubs (including nutjobs like DeMint, Colburn and Burr), the repubs now have the votes to pass the nuclear option which will do away with the filibuster on judicial nominees. They are crushing Specters balls at this moment to ensure he commits to support this option. Once this is passed, the dems will have to provide an up or down vote on judicial nominees and all of Bushco's nominees will become federal judges.

The dems are threatening to tie up the senate in knots, but this is a losing position. If you are a dem senator from a red state, how will you like to campaign in 2006 on an agenda of obstruction. If this approach is taken, the repubs will gain a 60 vote majority in the senate and will be able to drill for oil in the middle of Yellowstone Park.

[Democat]

13. Who cares if we have less seats if we don't fight when we have more?

It's illogical to suggest that we shouldn't fight when we have more seats because that might cause us to have less seats so then we couldn't fight anymore.

If we're going to hell anyway, we might as well go their fighting.

One of Kerry's biggest mistakes was that he wanted to fight a "nice" campaign and so he didn't end up doing any damage to Bush. If Kerry would have won, he would have already been damaged because Bush choose a very negative "scortched earth" type campaign.

Democrats cannot keep being pussies and expect anyone at all to support them. They are in danger of not just losing the right and middle but the left as well. After that, what do they have left? Nothing at all.

[Matilda]

18. Well, given the way the Repubs manipulate the voting process,

I guess there's an even chance they're going to get their 60 vote
majority in the senate anyway.

[suigeneris]

15. If they go for the nuclear option...

...then I think it calls for a bare knuckles fight. A red state senator can explain his actions by referring to the founding fathers' position on advice and consent of the senate in presidential appointments. See Federalist 77, it's plain as day and terrific, and was the popular understanding of the senate's function when the Constitution was ratified - its real adoption.

I don't think it would be a hard to explain, nuanced case, either. You can just quote the thing.

Besides, the pricks, they got 200 out of 210 nominations through anyway -- another great point to harp on.

Finally, what about the blue slip rule the repubs used so effectively during Clinton? http://democrats.senate.gov/~dpc/pubs/107-1-174.html

[qazplm]

19. it is scary

to think of the Reps going through with this.

Because if the nuclear option goes through, there is no going back, and the Reps will be in charge for at least the next 4-6 years in the senate and a lot of BAD things are going to happen.

We just have to find some way to not have this occur.

[CityDem]

22. May work for some

Try and explain the Federalist Papers to someone in north Florida or Michigan. Most voters would have a hard time explaining what the Federalist Papers are yet alone their position on judges. And don't expect the media to help much on this one. Daschle was defeated for many reasons including being painted as an obstructionist by Thune. If dems blow up the senate and fail to pass any legislation on issues like health care, energy, homeland security, etc., they will be trounced in the polls in 2006. Judicial nominations are very important because we cannot allow Bushco to pack the courts with right wing nuts. But, we lost the numbers on 11/2/2004 to effectively fight back and the repubs have the upper hand. Losing so many seats in the senate was a huge blow.