Posted on 04/26/2005 4:19:25 AM PDT by ricks_place
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has taken steps to try to soothe business and trade-association leaders who have voiced concerns that the so-called nuclear option will stymie the business agenda in Congress.
But Frist has shown no sign of backing down and has indicated his intention to press ahead with his drive to stop the Democratic filibuster of judicial nominees.
Frist's every move on the judicial filibuster issue is receiving heightened scrutiny, and the issue has been transformed in recent weeks into one of the most prominent national political news stories. Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters yesterday that GOP leaders are being driven to act by "radical Republicans" while predicting that the issue will help Democrats pick up Senate seats in the 2006 elections.
Frist's chief of staff, Eric Ueland, convened a meeting Thursday with leading business officials to explain the GOP leader's position. Present were top officials and lobbyists from the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Business Roundtable and the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors.
Also present were staff members for Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), as well as Marty Gold, a former Frist aide and parliamentary expert.
None of those present was willing to talk on the record, but sources familiar with the meeting say Frist's staff called the meeting as a courtesy to business groups " not to seek consent or assistance in the GOP's effort to stop the filibuster.
"People were more comfortable and had a better understanding of what exactly is going to occur," one source familiar with the meeting said.
Gold provided a briefing on the historical precedents for taking action to stop the filibuster. Nevertheless, it is clear that leading business groups remain opposed to steps that might result in Senate business's coming to a standstill. Democrats have threatened to disrupt the Senate's normal order of business if Republicans act, although Reid now says Democrats will not slow the Senate but rather will force it to consider their own agenda.
"Everyone in the room pretty much knew: Business is worried," the source said. Tom Donohue, who heads the Chamber of Commerce, has made known to GOP leaders his opposition to the nuclear option. Last Friday, he told reporters at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast, "If we do that, then all else is going to stop."
During last week's meeting, Stan Anderson, the chief legal officer for the Chamber, asked whether Republicans had the votes to execute what they term the "constitutional" option. Aides pointed to statements by Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) saying they had the votes. "I think they're going to do it," the source familiar with the meeting said.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the Democratic whip, told reporters that Republicans might have the votes, although Democrats have made headway. "We think we have a few," he said. "We need a few more."
Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) have each said they plan to oppose Frist's move. Sen. Olympia Snowe has made comments that lead some to believe she will oppose it. Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) has described himself as a "traditionalist," without saying how he would vote, while Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) has urged senators to be open to compromise.
Frist has not made any specific requests of the business leaders. Sources said he is aware that business groups do not consider internal Senate procedures to be their purview and they intend to stay out of the debate. Nor have Frist aides asked the business leaders for advice on how to resolve the dispute on judges.
Meanwhile, Republicans and Democrats kept talk alive of a possible compromise, although discussions between Reid and Frist have yet to bear fruit. Reid says he has been talking with a few centrist Republicans about the issue, while Frist insists he will release his own compromise plan before acting.
Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) this weekend appeared to endorse the idea of a deal where Democrats would allow seven judges to move while blocking two of President Bush's most controversial nominees.
Democrats say they intend to use Senate rules to bring their own agenda to the floor if Republicans undertake the nuclear option. They note that individual senators have the ability to place legislation on the legislative calendar using a procedure under Rule 14. Senators also may seek unanimous consent to bring such legislation to the floor under Rule 8. But to do so, they would need support from a majority of the Senate, making it unlikely they could set the Senate's agenda.
Even as the long debate on the judicial filibuster is coming to a head, Senate Republican aides and advisers say Frist has not yet decided on the exact strategy he will use to end the filibuster.
But according to another well-informed Republican source, Frist is inclined to have the chair rule that the Democratic filibuster is "dilatory."br>
Republicans appear to be searching for the method that would be least likely to give Democrats the opportunity to force a debate on the floor. One option discussed had been to raise a point of order that the filibuster is unconstitutional. However, if the constitutional point of order is deemed to be one of constitutional interpretation, it could be deemed to be debatable. "A point of order that is decided by the chair is not debatable, except at the sufferance of the chair," said the adviser to Republicans.
Having the chair rule that extended debate on a nominee had become dilatory apparently would not lead to a debatable motion, making it the preferred option for now. The issue of timing also will be important, as internal GOP polling has shown a slim majority of the public opposes the GOP's efforts to end the filibuster. The Senate today is expected to vote to proceed to take up a highway authorization bill - a priority for members of both parties. Next week, the Senate is scheduled to be in recess.
Frist has allowed this issue to go beyond stupid. While i don't like the little runt, tiny tommy allowed nothing to get in the way of ramming the Dems' agenda through the Senate and down the 'Pubbie's throats.
It's time to stop playing nice and either Frist will put up or shut up.
I don't think he will put up.
It will help the dems pick up seats only if our side backs down and gives in to them. It will take a lot of the wind out of conservatives sails. And Harry Reid is a putz.
I think Frist and the GOP will definitely be "putting up."
Makes you think, what if the Dems had someone a lot more cunning in there instead of Reid, like one of the Clintons. It's ridiculous that Bush picking his own ambassador and judges and getting a fair vote is even an issue, he has that right as our reelected President. The one shining light in all this rigamarole is Dick Cheney, the man has an aura of no BS about him and I trust him to make the right phone calls to the right Senators.
"The judicial nominations debate has created quite a bit of controversy. Emotions are running high on both sides, and it reveals once again, our country's desperate need for more civility in political life.
All of us who are active in politics -- whether Republican or Democrat -- need to remember the lesson of Ronald Reagan -- that we can disagree without being disagreeable.
Now let me tell you about a disagreement that is going on in our nation's capital.
Never in 214 years, never in the history of the United States Senate had a judicial nominee with majority support been denied an up-or-down vote... until two years ago. In the last Congress, however, a minority of senators denied ten of the President's judicial nominees an up-or-down vote. They wouldn't allow a vote, because they knew the nominations would be approved.
Now we are in a new Congress, and these same senators again threaten to obstruct the vote on judges. And, even worse, if they don't get their way, they threaten to shut down the Senate -- and obstruct government itself.
Americans elect their senators to vote on the people's business. That is a senator's job -- to vote. If these senators are not prepared to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities, then why are they here in the first place?
Right now, there are 46 vacancies on the federal bench. Four of the appeals court vacancies are in the region that serves my home state of Tennessee.
Those four nominees have been waiting a combined thirteen years for a vote on the Senate floor. Thirteen years!
Either confirm the nominees or reject them... but don't leave them hanging. Don't leave our courts hanging. Don't leave our country hanging.
If the nominees are rejected... fine... that's fair. At least, rejection is a vote.
Give those nominees the courtesy and the respect of a vote.
Let me tell you about Priscilla Owen. A Texas Supreme Court Justice for the last ten years -- she has received praise from both parties.
Former Justice Raul Gonzalez, a Democrat, said: "I found her to be apolitical, extremely bright, diligent in her work, and of the highest integrity. I recommend her for confirmation without reservation."
Justice Owen has also been a leader for providing free legal services to the poor. And she has worked to soften the impact of legal proceedings on children of divorcing parents.
On May 9, 2001, President Bush nominated Justice Owen to the fifth circuit Court of Appeals.
To this day, even though a majority of Senators support her, she has been denied an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate.
Ladies and gentlemen, Justice Owen deserves better. She deserves a vote.
To ensure Justice Owen and other judicial nominees get a vote, I've been trying to work out a compromise that would do just that.
It's not easy. My Democratic counterpart, Senator Reid, calls me a radical Republican.
I don't think it's radical to ask senators to vote.
I don't think it's radical to expect senators to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities.
I don't think it's radical to restore precedents that worked so well for 214 years.
Now if Senator Reid continues to obstruct the process, we will consider what opponents call the "nuclear option." Only in the United States Senate could it be considered a devastating option to allow a vote. Most places call that democracy.
But let me make one important point -- this option only addresses the delay of judicial nominees.
In no way will it curb delays on legislation, which is a time-honored senatorial practice. "Mr. Smith" will still be able to go to Washington and take a stand on the Senate floor.
Now some Republicans -- even some conservatives -- don't think we should press the issue on requiring votes on judicial nominees.
They're concerned that in the future Republicans won't be able to use this same device to obstruct Democratic nominees.
Well, that may be true. But if what Democrats are doing is wrong today, it won't be right for Republicans to do the same thing tomorrow.
Ladies and gentlemen, our judiciary must be independent, impartial and fair.
When we think judicial decisions are outside mainstream American values, we will say so. But we must also be clear that the balance of power among all three branches requires respect -- not retaliation. I won't go along with that.
Allow me to close with how you can help.
I hope you'll call your senators and remind them -- whether they're Republican or Democrat -- that they work for you. Tell them to do what's right. Tell them to do what's fair. Tell them to do their job -- give judicial nominees the up-or-down votes they deserve.
Thank you for coming together to study this issue, and thank you for inviting me to be a part of this evening's discussion."
Bill Frist
"Now if Senator Reid continues to obstruct the process, we will consider what opponents call the "nuclear option."
Replace "consider" with "implement" and I'm onboard.
I am just not sure this is politically wise.
There is danger in being in such a hurry to get judges in. Changing 200 year-old rules wreaks of radicalism and opens the party up to accusations that are presently falling on deaf ears.
Forget not that most of the sheeple are only slightly right of center politically. The balance is delicate and the majority party will soon be a minorty with a few conservative judges rather than the majorty who gets to chose who is even a judicial candidate if we are not careful.
This is not long-term thinking. Running up the share price and cashing in our options won't work if we can't get out of the market.
Sometimes you just punch the bully in the nose!
This is one of those times!
"Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) has urged senators to be open to compromise."
So now we know what all this "compromise" nonsense from Reid is about. He has to fool Arlen. Our "best friend" in the Senate. The man that we just had to renominate in Pennsylvania.
If I count Chafee, McCain, Snowe, and add Warner, Collins, and Arlen, then Frist doesn't have the votes.
If this all comes down to Arlen's vote, I have a feeling that there are going to be some red faces in the party establishment.
Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)...(predicted) that the issue will help Democrats pick up Senate seats in the 2006 elections.(P)
If this were true, he would be encouraging the repubs. He's not because it isn't.
I suspect this is because most folks either don't know the details or are making the common mistake of assuming this change would apply to ALL legislation.
I sure hope some of Dubya's stratergery folks are helping Frist with this.
From Post#6:
"Never in 214 years, never in the history of the United States Senate had a judicial nominee with majority support been denied an up-or-down vote... until two years ago. In the last Congress, however, a minority of senators denied ten of the President's judicial nominees an up-or-down vote. They wouldn't allow a vote, because they knew the nominations would be approved...
"[some are] concerned that in the future Republicans won't be able to use this same device to obstruct Democratic nominees. Well, that may be true. But if what Democrats are doing is wrong today, it won't be right for Republicans to do the same thing tomorrow."
From comments you make here, there is much more in that post you apparently don't understand. I recommend you read it.
Frist's speech in post#6 makes it clear it does not apply to other legislation in the best way possible.
We move forward with Judge Janice Rogers Brown. I want to watch the RATS and their media handmaidens have to publicly explain why they are denying a black female a promotion to the federal courts.
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.