This is great.
I know there are those on Free Republic who think this step shouldn't be done, but this is what is right.
Frist has the votes but won't use the "nuclear option" right now.
So, the Dems let a few people through, the urgency of the issue peters out, Frist loses a few of his supposed 51 votes, and the rest of the nominations get blocked. Brilliant.
They will resist. The Republicans have not demonstrated that they will pull the trigger. If Frist does get around to changing the rules, then the Democrats have bought time. Finally, they and the MSM [I realize that I am being redundant!] will harp on how unfair of the Republicans to change the rules.
I think the Republicans should go pre-emptive and change the rules right up front. In the long run it will save a lot of grief. The Democrats will be less likely to challenge them on other issues where the Dems can't win.
Seconded ;-)
Is anybody keeping score on how many times this issue has been declared "settled" as opposed to how many times Zarqawi has been captured? I'll believe it when I see it. If the sissyboy, Frist, has the votes, he should use them or STFU.
It is definitely the honorable thing to do, but I don't think it is the right thing to do.
Once or twice in a century a party gets a chance to make big changes in government. FDR and LBJ come to mind.
The conservatives will have the opportunity for the next year to make major changes in our judiciary our institutions and our laws. After that time it will go back to stalemate with only minor changes possible.
I say fix the things that need fixing, now.
The RATS have warned that we shouldn't do this. That they will get back at us in the future. Hey, when they are in a position to nominate judges (I hope that never happens) and they have their 51 votes, the judge deserves to be confirmed. That is the meaning of advise and consent.
I haven't seen anyone here who isn't willing to do this.
I think the right thing to do is threaten it, and then see if the Democrats call our bluff. It hasn't mattered much in the overall scheme of things so far, but when it comes to Supreme Court vacancies, I don't think there's any question that they'd regret calling our bluff.
He needs to do things:
1. Restore the original meaning of filibuster. This lazy-man's filibuster is ludicrous and does nothing other than redefine the requirements of the Senate votes.
2. Prohibit filibusters altogether when it comes to the congressional mandate of 'advice and consent'.