Frist Educates the Public on Senate Rule Change

CNS News ^ | 4-18-05 | Susan Jones

[FlyLow]

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is using the Internet to explain why the Senate may change its rules to allow an up-or-down vote on President Bush's judicial nominees.

Conservative Republicans are demanding that Frist force a Senate vote on the proposed rule change in the next few weeks -- before Congress breaks for its Memorial Day recess.

But Democrats and a few Republicans are pressuring Frist to leave the rules as they are right now.

Meanwhile, Frist wants to make it clear that Senate Republicans are not trying to abolish all filibusters.

In an effort to separate fact from myth, Frist's "issues and legislation" webpage notes, "Any proposed procedural change would affect filibusters of judicial nominees only."

Frist makes it clear that filibusters of legislation would not be affected by a Senate rule change.

Frist also explains why a Senate rule change is under consideration: "Never before has a Minority blocked a judicial nominee that has majority support for an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor," the webpage says.

"Now the Minority says the filibuster is their only choice, because the Majority controls both the White House and the Senate. But that claim fails the test of history and betrays the mandate of our Constitution."

[mwl1]

The overriding GOP talking point should be that the RATS are denying blacks and minorities deserved promotions.

[chambley1]

He can rebuild a heart, but can't give Harry Reid a transfusion of honesty.

[CondorFlight]

If they don't manage the rules change, then he'd better start educating the republican senators on the joys of retirement, cause that's where they're headed next. . .

[Michael.SF.]

Frist will impress me for the first time if he follows the advice of the Byrd Precedent.

[Clump]

The question is, do we have 51 senators that will vote for the change? I know there are about 3 dims that would not filibuster anyway, but does that mean they will support the change? Even if they don't, we are OK so long as no more than 4 pubbies defect on the issue. Any thoughts?

[felixmh]

"Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is using the Internet to explain why the Senate may change its rules to allow an up-or-down vote on President Bush's judicial nominees."

And any future President's nominees...
That's what worries me.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

"Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is using the Internet to explain why the Senate may change its rules to allow an up-or-down vote on President Bush's judicial nominees."

And any future President's nominees... That's what worries me.

Well, what's the choice? Either you stop the filibustering of judicial nominees or you establish the precedent that no judicial nominees will ever be voted into the appeals court or higher unless the president's party has 60 votes in the Senate. What are the chances of that?

The minority can filibuster, but the minority has to respect the limitations of minority power - push it too hard, and the Senate will eventually vote to change to rule to end all filibusters. Which "dean of the Senate" and former klansman Robert Byrd once threatened to do, when he was in the majority.

[wmfights]

I have never doubted for one second that if the roles were reversed the Rats would have ended the filibuster in the first year of their presidents first term and then would have said "quit acting like a bunch of babies crying about it".

The senate is well within its rights to set its rules and why have a majority if your not for something. If your for something then gosh darn it get it done, or get out of the way and let somebody else get it done.

[dhs12345]

...such as the Democrats.

Also, one of the Dem's rebuttals is that the Republicans filibustered when they were in the minority. The usual argument from left from the left -- so-and-so did it before.

It's hard ball boys. Are you up to the task?

[wmfights]

If the Pubs don't get out of their country clubs and find some spines they will lose their majority. I won't vote for a Rat, but I won't be eager to go to the polls and I'll bet a lot of people feel the same way. I haven't failed to go to the polls since 1972. I've put up with the blue bloods because I've had to, but now is the time for conservatives to be put into all levels of the judiciary. I want my freedom. I want judges who understand judicial restraint and original intent. I do not want benevolent government, I want less government! Enough is Enough.

[MHGinTN]

I agree!

And now the crafty (dishonest, deceitful, dissembling, democrat kk klansman) Byrd is rewriting history. He recently denounced Republican consideration of a parliamentary maneuver designed to clear the way for a simple majority vote on President George W. Bush's judicial nominees.
In blasting the GOP's so-called "nuclear option," Byrd invoked Hitler, Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy -- drawing condemnation from Jewish leaders.
Beyond Byrd's rhetoric, now a staple among the Howard Dean-led Democrats, it is worth noting that Byrd is condemning Republicans for considering using a tactic that he himself used four times during his tenure as majority leader.

[Saundra Duffy]

I have lost all faith in the GOP, except maybe for Tom DeLay.