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.
I have always contended that the nuclear option, once the outcome of the vote was assured, should take place immediately, prior to any nominations being considered.
Handling the issue in this manner would relieve the MSM and the left of a particular target upon which to focus their venom.
Making the change with nothing on the slate would force the media and the left to speculate on the impact of anticipated potential nominees having the opportunity to be voted upon by the entire senate......and as we all know, the MSM and the left make their living by speculating and never let truth or factual data alter their rhetoric.
EODGUY
I agree with you! Go ahead Senetor Frist...PULL THE TRIGGER!
"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."
I totally disagree. The Republicans should put up their nominees and as the Dems reject each one, the Republicans put out a press release about Dem obstructionisism and why America has fallen into the sewer. Remind the country how Republicans helped pass civil rights legislation and how they have become the party of ALL people.
After about five or six of these, the Republicans go nuclear, and put everyone up for a vote at one time. This can kill any RAT chances in 06 and 08. Force Hillary to vote on minority nominees.
Saddam Hussein agreed with you.
Muammar Ghaddafi did not.
I understand. But that concern implies that the urgency of the issue is now elevated. And we don’t know what the conditions would have to be to get the 51 votes.
They way the Dems didn't even put up a fight on the Class action bill showed that all they care about about the Judicial nominees. They are trying to lull the GOP into complacency and then the entire Left-wing establishment will come at Bush's no mnees with guns blazing, and Dems will mount a serius fillibuster, with GOP "moderates" (traitors) on board.
Specter Rebuffs Democrats on Judiciary Hearings
Human Events Online ^ | Jan 28, 2005 | Robert B. Bluey
Posted on 01/28/2005 4:18:17 PM EST by SwinneySwitch
Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter (R.-Pa.) told HUMAN EVENTS he would resist pressure from Democrats to hold new hearings on the judicial nominees that President Bush plans to soon renominate. Most of the nominees have already undergone questioning by members of the Judiciary Committee, leaving Specter with the option of bypassing another round of hearings and instead sending them to the floor for a vote.
"In general, I do not propose to have rehearings," Specter said. "There would have to be an exceptional circumstance that would require a hearing. We've already had hearings."
Specter, however, said he might subject two appellate court nominees--Defense Department counsel William Haynes and Brigham Young University counsel Thomas Griffith--to another round of hearings. Sparks are likely to fly over both nominees. Haynes's first hearing came in November 2003, prior to the abuse scandal at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Griffith, meanwhile, has run into trouble over an expired law license he forgot to renew. He had a sparsely attended hearing last November.
A spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) scoffed at the idea Republicans would forgo hearings. "What is being suggested would make an already problematic process for these nominations even more troublesome," said Jim Manley, staff director for the Senate Democratic Communications Center.
Even with Specter's not planning to hold new hearings for the old nominees, the clock is ticking for Majority Leader Bill Frist (R.-Tenn.), who promised to bring one of the Bush nominees to a vote on the Senate floor in February. The White House, however, has yet to submit the nominees to the Senate for consideration. Specter said he expects Bush to do so in "due course." White House spokeswoman Erin Healy told HUMAN EVENTS: "The process is moving along. As soon as we have something to announce, we'll let you know."
Senate Republicans have refused to disclose who the first nominee to face a vote might be, but some view California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown and Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen as ideal. Brown was the first black woman to sit on California's high court.
In a January 4 speech to open the 109th Congress, Frist said he wouldn't hesitate to change Senate procedures if Democrats tried to filibuster the nominee, as they did to 10--including Brown and Owen--in the last Congress.
Robert B. Bluey is Assistant Editor for HUMAN EVENTS
I think you're right.
Hopefully, Your scenario is correct..but, time and time again, Frist has been show to be unable or willing to restore the intent of the constitution.
Absolutely.