Posted on 03/16/2005 12:08:42 PM PST by neverdem
WASHINGTON, March 15 - Democrats and Republicans escalated their fight Tuesday over who should bear the blame if the battle over President Bush's judicial nominees shuts down much of the Senate's legislative business, a confrontation that both sides now say may occur as early as next month.
Senator Bill Frist, the Tennessee Republican who is the majority leader, has said he plans to bring back to the floor the judicial nominations previously blocked by Democratic filibusters, threatening to change Senate rules to eliminate the chance to filibuster judicial nominees if Democrats do it again. Democrats, in turn, have vowed to block virtually all but the most essential Senate business if the rules are altered.
On Tuesday, Senator Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who is the minority leader, stood on the Senate steps with two dozen colleagues to lay the blame at the feet of Republicans. Mr. Reid called President Bush "drunk with power" and urged voters to "set aside your partisan views and oppose this arrogant abuse of power."
The filibuster, a move by a minority of at least 40 senators to prevent action by exploiting the requirement of 60 votes to close debate, has been used by Democrats to hold up 10 of Mr. Bush's 214 judicial nominees. Dr. Frist is threatening to alter the rules to eliminate the filibuster of judicial nominees.
On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to approve once more the nomination of Judge William G. Myers, who would be the first of the previously blocked appointees to become eligible for a vote on the floor this year.
Liberal groups are also intensifying their efforts against Republicans. This week, MoveOn.org is buying $100,000 in air time to run television commercials depicting a giant hand using the dome of the Capitol as a rubber stamp, followed by an image of Vice President Dick Cheney with a crown on his head. A spokesman for the group said the advertisements would l begin running in Washington and on CNN nationally.
Republicans said Democrats were the ones making the threats. "To shut down the Senate would be irresponsible and partisan," Dr. Frist said in a statement. He described the proposed rules change as a restoration of normal proceedings: "The solution is simple: return to 200 years of tradition and allow up-or-down votes on judges."
Some Republican senators and many conservative supporters have urged Dr. Frist to force the issue before a vacancy on the Supreme Court.
"If we wait until the Supreme Court, I think it is too late," said Paul Weyrich, a veteran conservative organizer. "I don't think we will prevail there."
Some Republicans argue that a Senate shutdown would hurt the Democrats more.
"They are the ones who want to spend money," said Senator Trent Lott, Republican of Mississippi. "If we don't get appropriations bills and we wind up spending less money in appropriations, I like that. So who are they punishing here?"
Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, said of the showdown: "I think it is imminent. At some point we are going to have this fight, and I am ready."
Once again, Dems are proving this fact: What a Democrat accuses another of most vehemently is usually the very offense of which he/she is guilty.
We're ready too. Bring it on.
BRING IT ON!!!!
The Rats have had too much power for too long. If a shutdown of the Senate is the cost of freedom from liberalism, I say it is way past time to pay it.
Does Mr. Reid not realize that what goes on in the Senate is up to the senators, not the president?
They are completely misrepresenting what is going on here; heck, Feingold even said that the GOP "went nuclear" on the ANWR vote today.
Do they even KNOW what it means?
To libs, words don't mean anything. They are simply a means to incite their sheeple into a thoughtless, emotional frenzy. Its all they have left.
"a confrontation that both sides now say may occur as early as next month."
Whew! I'm leaving the country Saturday,
and was afraid I would miss it.
I was out of the country the last time ('95?)
the government was shut down, and totally
missed that one.
I can't wait to watch this. ;o)
I'm sure that Reid used that word intentionally.
-PJ
Even though the Nevada nincompoop, Harry Reid, made the threat to "Shut down the Senate," in front of God and everybody, the Times chooses to bury the threat so the lead doesn't say who will shut down the Senate. And the reporter probably has his political bias so internalized that no editor had to remind him how to write to protect the Democrats from the consequences of their own childishness.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, "Condi Rice & Pierce Flanigan's Father's Hat"
Do they even KNOW what it means?
Of course not. When it comes to judges, the REAL nuclear option would be to abolish all federal courts below the Supreme Court, and if they are to be reestablished, fill them with real judges instead of wanna-be dictators.
I thought the Dems were changing the rules to filibuster when only a majority vote is necessary????
Are you using my name in vain, pal?
Actually, shutting down the government sounds like a great idea. Why is everyone so upset about that prospect? Can’t raise taxes, can’t interfere in our personal lives, can’t pass feel-good laws that ultimately protect bad guys by punishing the good guys, and on and on and on.
If the Democrats insist on spending the next 3 years filibustering, who are we that we should deny them their wish? It would be great for the country to watch see leading light Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) reading Julius Caesar for months on end. It can only help.
Can't buy beans and bullets for the folks keeping the terrorists at bay.
Does anyone know how many APPEALS level courts and higher the president has made appointments to and how many have been approved?
There is nowhere a super majority is required for the approval of Federal judges. I defy Harry Reid to find it.
The three-fifth majority filibuster provision is also a courtesy rule of the U.S. Senate. It is not in the constitution. It has been used to block legislation in the past, but not merely the up and down vote on a judicial nominee.
While changing the rules may ultimately be necessary, I would first prefer to see an actual filibuster for several days just so the American people understand fully what horse's rectums the opposition has become. And if the government should shut down for a few days because of said filibuster, it will be a change in the rules, not timid capitulation, which gets it operating again.
I agree. A filibuster would certainly be a turn-off to most people. I'm amazed at the number of people that I've talked to who think the filibuster is no longer used.
Let's Roll!
Let's Roll!
Let's Roll!
Let's Roll!
Let's Roll!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.