If Rehnquist retires before Jan 20, 2005, can we trust Dems to fillibuster

[BurtWorm]

to keep any Bush appointee out? (Assuming Kerry wins.)

[troublemaker]

1. Yes. And the Senate's not even in session.

[The Chronicler]

2. The process won't start before Jan 20 regardless.

A lame duck Bush would not be able to push an appointment through.

[Bunny]

4. This is said with great confidence here at DU.

I wish I could trust the Dem senators to filibuster. I just don't trust them - they may want to give George W. a parting gift.

[BurtWorm]

8. I'm with you, bunnyj.

I'd love to trust the Senate Dems, but I've learned it's usually better not to.

[DaveinMD]

9. based on what do you say this

You make no sense.

[Bunny]

17. Well thank you for telling me I make no sense.

I guess I must have been in a coma these past four years, and competely imagined the Dems repeatedly bending over for Dear Leader.

Remember all the criticism of Daschle for trying to "play nice"? No of course you don't, because, you see, I make no sense. Thanks. :eyes:

[freetobegay]

10. So can we trust your not voting Democratic in the election?

Or do I see double standards here?

[Bunny]

12. I have no idea what you even mean.

:eyes:

[freetobegay]

16. I thought it was pretty simple myself

Are you going to vote for someone you don't trust?

[Bunny]

19. What the fuck does voting for Kerry have to do with not trusting the

Senate Dems? Last I heard, Kerry was not the only Democratic Senator. Is that straightforward enough for you? Or could you be any more obtuse?

[BurtWorm]

20. It's the nature of voting lesser of two evils.

The Dems are by far the lesser of two evils, but when they vote with the Republicans to enable the Bushists, they're not to be trusted.

[BurtWorm]

15. One can vote Dem and still not trust them.

It's actually wise not to trust them, given their craven track record when it comes to Bush.

[TexasSissy]

14. No, * has stated that when he wins, the first thing he's gonna do is...

name a new S.Ct. Justice, on November 3rd. Then he's going to move fast to privatize Social Security, move fast on tort reform, and then name 3 more S.Ct. Justices during the remainder of his term.

If the Congress is still controlled by Republicans, THEY will push the Repub agenda, which includes nominating conservative S.Ct. Justices.

[DaveinMD]

3. yes

the Dems would filibuster. This is not something to worry about.

[BurtWorm]

5. So it would be better if Rehnquist retires now anyway.

But he won't. He'll hang on in case he's needed to settle another contested election. The bigoted old bastid.

[dolstein]

6. There's ample precedent for this

Earl Warren announced his retirement in June of 1968. LBJ nominated then-associate justice Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice, and nominated Homer Thornberry to fill the associate justice vacancy. After the Fortas nomination was filibustered, LBJ eventually withdrew both nominations in October of 1968. At that point, it was considered too late for LBJ to name someone else.

[in_cog_ni_to]

7. Can the chimp do another recess appointment?

Does anyone know? Are there different rules for appointing Supreme Court Justices?

[Shrek]

13. It's allowed by the Constitution

But the potential for backlash would be huge. I don't know that it's politically viable.

[Bunny]

21. But if he's being kicked out of office anyway, why would he be concerned

about backlash?

[Shrek]

22. Good point

But I have to think that even Bush would wilt in the face of overwhelming negative opinion from the public, the press, and congress. But maybe I'm being naive to think that such a stunt would necessarily galvanize negative opinion. Clearly he's gotten away with plenty of other stuff.

[cheshire]

11. Tim Ryan he can go the distance. Jackson, Hillary, Boxer you bet.

[Gothmog]

18. Beware of the Nuclear option

I am very afraid of the Repugs exercising the so called "Nuclear Option" after Kerry/Edwards wins. If there is a special session, Bush could nominate someone to replace Rehnquist and then with the vote of 51 senators change the rules and circumvent a filibuster. Our only hope would be if a couple of GOP senators refuse to go along with this plan i.e. Lincoln Chaffey, John McCain and O. Snow.

This is the kind of dirty trick that I can see Bush/Rove pulling after a loss.

[dr.strangelove]

23. Are you kidding, bush would do this in a second

There is no rule prohibiting lame duck nominations, it is just frowned upon. When bush loses, if the repukes hold a majority in the senate (likely a 51 or 52 vote lead, but I'm still holding out hope) they can certainly confirm any nomination bush makes. He can nominate anytime after Nov. 2. the new senate takes office Jan 3. They can schedule immediate judiciary hearings and try to force a vote. There is little chance that the Dems will not keep 41 seats, so they will talk down a vote with a filibuster.

However, picture this. Bush loses and nominates a new justice. The Senate meets and votes to change the rules of the senate to allow a time-limit to filibustering nominees. This would be challenged, but it is likely the Supreme Court would follow precedent and call this a "political question" (a rule of law that the court does not have authority over congressional rules unless an Act of Congress gives it to them) that they have no authority to rule on. Thus the change is made and before Jan 20, the new justice is confirmed.
I see this happening when Kerry wins.