Bobby Byrd on the nuclear option.[You have got to read what Byrd said today]

RadioBlogger ^ | 3-01-05 | Robert Byrd

[OXENinFLA]

For those who may not have seen it, Mr. Smith (Goes to Washington) is the fictional story of one young Senator's crusade against forces of corruption, and his lengthy filibuster, his lengthy filibuster for the values he hold dear. My how things have changed. These days, Mr. Smith would be called an obstructionist. Rumor has it that there is a plot on foot to curtail the right of extended debate in this hollowed chamber. Not in accordance with its rules, mind you, but by fiat from the Chair. Fiat from the Chair. The so-called nuclear option. Hear me! The so-called nuclear option.

This morning I asked a man, "What does the nuclear option mean to you?" He said, "Oh, you mean with Iran?" I was in the hospital a few days ago with my wife. And I asked her doctor, I asked a doctor, "What does the nuclear option mean to you?" He said, "Well, it sounds like we're getting ready to drop some device, some atomic device on North Korea." Well, the so-called nuclear option puports to be directed solely at the Senate's advice and consent prerogatives regarding federal judges. But the claim that no right exists to filibuster judges aims an arrow straight at the heart of the Senate's long tradition of unlimited debate.

James Madison, James Madison wanted to grant the Senate the power to select judicial appointees, with the executive relegated to the sidelines. But a compromise brought the present arrangement. The appointees selected by the executive, with the advice and consent of the Senate confirmed. Note, hear me again, note that nowhere, nowhere in the Constitution of the United States is a vote on appointments mandated.

It will be the Office of the President to nominate, and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint. There will, of course, be no exertion of choice on the part of the Senate. They may defeat one choice of the Executive, and oblige him to make another; but they cannot themselves choose - they can only rafity or reject the choice he may have made.

So you can see what it means to the smallest states in these United States to be able to stand on this floor and debate to their utmost. Until their feet will no longer hold them, and their lungs of brass will no longer speak in behalf of their states in behalf of a minority in behalf of an issue that affects vitally their constituencies. Unfettered debate.

One of the main bulwarks against the growing power, is free debate in the Senate. So long as there's free debate, men of courage and understanding will rise to defend against potential dictators. The Senate today is one place where no matter what else may exist, there is still a chance to be heard. An opportunity to speak. The duty to examine. And the obligation to protect. It is one of the few refuges of democracy.

Minorites have an illustrious past full of suffering, torture, smear and even death. Jesus Christ was killed by a majority. Columbus was smeared. Christians have been tortured. Had the United States Senate existed during those trying times, I'm sure those people would have found an advocate. Nowhere else can any political, social or religious group finding itself under sustained attack receive a better refuge. Well, Mr. President, Senator Jenner was right. The Senate was deliberatly conceived to be what he called a better refuge, meaning one styled as a guardian of the rights of the minority. The Senate is the watchdog because majorities can be wrong, and filibusters can highlight injustices, and history is full of examples.

Hitler's originality lay in his realization that effective revolutions in modern conditions are carried out with, and not without, not against, the power of the State. The correct order of events was first to secure access to that power of the State, and then begin his revolution. Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality. He never abandoned the cloak of legality. He recognized the enormous, psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made his illegality legal. And that is what the nuclear option seeks to do. To Rule 22 of the standing rules of the Senate. I said to someone this morning who was shoveling snow in my area. "What does nuclear option mean to you?" He answered, "Oh, you mean with Iran?" The people generally don't know what this is about. The nuclear option seeks to alter the rules by sidestepping the rules, thus making the impermissable the rule.

[Checkers]

Related thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1353847/posts

[cyncooper]

Hugh pointed out that Sheets used the filibuster Rule to block the Civil Rights Act of 1964

It would be nice if Frist would say that on the floor of the Senate.

And repeat it and repeat it and repeat it until it cannot be ignored.

Gotta love Hugh bringing it up, but I wish he'd devoted more time to it. The hour of his show I heard was about developing a blogging deconstruction of the Minneapolis Tribune. A fine and excellent idea, but I think he should have shoved Byrd's outrage to the head of the line.

[cyncooper]

"Minorites have an illustrious past full of suffering, torture, smear and even death." A member of the Ku Klux Klan actually had the NERVE to make the above statement!? Paging George Orwell!!

Especially in light of the background of some of these fine nominees that HE'S blocked.

[Txsleuth]

I wondered about why this was put in the Bloggers section---

This is hugh news and is relevant to the days news and the activisim that is needed to make sure that Byrd's little speech is countered by the Reps. taking action to get up-or-down votes for the nominees---

Whats up, admin.?

[Mo1]

I wondered about why this was put in the Bloggers section---

Because the link is from a Blog site and not the complete text/article of Sen. Byrds comments

[BigSkyFreeper]

Byrd certainly made good on a promise.

[Howlin]

If anyone can document that it would be great

I'd like to see an ad, with Byrd's statement from today, and then include Byrd's duplicitous actions regarding the Civil Rights Act, of all things!

[finnman69]

The nuclear option is a win win. The Rats were going to filibuster anyway, and will fight the rule change as well. Might as well force them to suffer double bad press.

[Howlin]

A "Don't Miss This" ping.

[Howlin]

The thing is, if the situation was reveresed, they'd sure as hell use it.

[Howlin]

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., is preparing to take a more active role in defense of the filibuster, Roll Call said Monday, and is threatening to become a major presence on the Senate floor if Republicans alter Senate rules to prevent judicial nominations from being blocked by a minority of senators.

Fine; let's fillibuster; the old fashioned way.

[cyncooper]

I saw right after my "documentation" comment that there's a record all right and on the Civil Rights Act.

I want to see these Republicans take care of this and pronto.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Fine; let's fillibuster; the old fashioned way.

Exactly what Rush said this morning. The "Nuclear Option" according to Rush is, changing the Senate rules to what they were back in the days when Senators had to work their tails off to get a filibuster.

[Txsleuth]

Have any of you scratched your head like I have, trying to figure out why the Republican Senators, who have an even bigger majority now than last year, seem so impotent in dealing with the dems?< I find it hilarious that Senator Frist's name is even discussed when 2008 comes up because he is the most impotent, because he is the MAJORITY LEADER, so is responsible for the ineptness of the Senate---/p>

[Howlin]

Tomorrow we get to witness Senator Robert KKK Byrd re-enact his filibuster of 1964 when he attempted to de-rail the passage of the Civil Right Act (supported in his opposition to it by Al Gorefs DAD!).

The Dems were the vast majority in Congree then, but it took the Republicans to FORCE the legistlation to the floor, and force Byrd to SHUT UP and allow it to pass.

So when the Dems needed someone to attempt to block a black woman from becoming Secretary of State the natural choice was Bobby Byrd. I hope he wears a sheet!

Comment by Justrand | Email | 1/24/2005 - 11:19 am

Liberal ChriscI wasnft talking about HOW the Civil Rights Act passed, but rather WHO opposed it (Byrd).

And as for your g44 to 27 statistic, talk about misleading! There were only 35 Republicans IN the Senate! 77% (all but of the Republicans voted to SHUT BYRD UP (cloture). While only 67% (21 wanted the filibuster to continue, and to kill the legislation) of Dems voted that way.

The Dems had 65 Senatorscenough to force cloture ALL BY THEMSELVES!

Ultimately 80% of the Republicans voted FOR the Civil Rights Act. While only 66% of Dems did (Byrd and Gore vote gNO").

Comment by Justrand | Email | 1/24/2005 - 11:45 am

LC,

You can spin all you like, but it is still a fact that most of the opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was Democratic, will a majority of the support from the Republicans. Yes, it was pushed by a Democrat. Big deal. When the votes were counted, the Democrats were the ones voting against.

Also note, that probably the only Senator still serving who voted against, and filibustered against, is the Grand Wizard, Bob Byrd (D-KKK).

So, trying to claim credit for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is just plain silly.

Also note the history of the two parties. The Republican Party was founded in opposition to slavery. The Democrats backed it, and a large number of them worked to maintain esp. the African-Americans in near servitude for the next 100 years (through the KKK, Jim Crow laws, etc.).

So, the minorities in this country can thank the Republicans for not only the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but also the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which, among other things, abolished slavery and provided for Equal Protection under the Law.

Comment by Bruce Hayden | Homepage | 1/24/2005 - 12:31 pm

[The Hammer]

Byrd knows first hand. He used to be the reason for the season. Now he wants redemption. He'll get damnation for a reward, but at least WV has highways!

[Mo1]

I find it hilarious that Senator Frist's name is even discussed when 2008 comes up

I am sure Sen Frist is nice man and he's done many good things for the party

But he isn't even on my short list of possible candidates

[Bullish]

Byrd is a self serving, lying hypocrite who lusts for power....

Er.... wait a minute, that pretty much describes ALL of the current batch of liberal democrats.

What we're seeing from democrats these days points up why they must NEVER EVER be allowed to regain power in this country.

[BigSkyFreeper]

I am sure Sen Frist is nice man and he's done many good things for the party

But he isn't even on my short list of possible candidates

I agree.

[Howlin]

It pretty much describes OUR guys, too.