Where’s the GOP Backbone in the Senate?

Seamax News ^ | 10/29/2003 | Brendan Lantry

[Hugenot]

In the ongoing battle to nominate experienced, capable, and, dare we say, diverse candidates to the judiciary that will interpret the Constitution and not attempt to re-write it, the Bush administration and Republicans in the Senate have gone only half way to completing the process.

Democrats led by Charles Schumer and Ted Kennedy blocked and filibustered the nomination of Miguel Estrada (an Hispanic American) over a 22 month span, to the point where he removed himself from the nomination. Now, a similar battle is looming for the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown (an African American).

President Bush should be commended for nominating judges like Miguel Estrada and Janice Rogers Brown to the D.C. Circuit Court.

Why are the Democrats fighting these nominations so bitterly?

Reason #1: The D.C. Circuit Court has been at times a “feeder” court for nominees to the U. S. Supreme Court. Judges Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg served on the D.C. Circuit Court. Democrats don’t want to see non-liberal minority faces in high judicial positions, that is judges who will not legislate the liberal agenda from the bench.

Reason #2: The use of the filibuster in blocking these nominations is preventing an “up and down” vote on the nominations. Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer do not have the votes to win an straight vote, so they found a way for Democrats to obstruct the process.

It takes a majority vote (at least 51) to pass a nomination, which the Republicans have, but Senate rules require 60 votes to break a filibuster, which the Republicans do not have. So, Democrats can continue to hide behind their obstruction.

It’s about time that Republicans make the Democrats stay in the Senate and debate the issue in a true filibuster and carry it on MSNBC, Fox News, or CNN. Make Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy and their ilk put a public stamp on their opposition by forcing a vote for this nomination once and for all. It would be good to finally see the Republicans in the Senate make the Democrats sweat a little under the glare of the TV lights.

[AbsoluteJustice]

The majority (Republicans) did not agree to this rule, furthermore fillibusters do not take place when items are in committee. It is unprecedented and is unconstitutional for ANY Senate committe to fillibuster a judicial nomination. ANY

[Robert A Cook PE]

But the "tradition-bound" RINO's WANT the democrats to continue the holdout - by leaving it in the committee! - because THEY (the RINO's) see "tradition" and their role init, as more important than irritating the democrats. And they (The RINO'S really don't support Bush anyway.)

Thus, the democrats can get by with breaking the legal and traditional "rules" of the Senate, because

(1) the press WANTS those rules broken and BUsh stymied, and

(2) they (the RINO'S, the press, and democrats) have no morals to see that the the democrats are holding repub to an ethical standard NOT met by ANY the democrats.

To the RINO's the fancy gowns worn in the Senate at the impeachment as they defended Clinton are mmore worthy of more respect than the Constitution itself.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your frustration! I wonder how things would be if the Senators acted on principle and took every oath as solemn.

[Mannaggia l'America]

Where’s the GOP Backbone in the Senate?

Senator Jesse Helms retired.... That's where it went.

[NYC Republican]

Senator Jesse Helms retired.... That's where it went.

Add Strom Thurmond to that list... We've lost a few really conservative Senators lately... I really liked Fred Thomposon as well... So far, Lamar Alexander isn't showing me much.

[AbsoluteJustice]

"To the RINO's the fancy gowns worn in the Senate at the impeachment as they defended Clinton are mmore worthy of more respect than the Constitution itself"

BUMP!!!!!

[Robert A Cook PE]

If the Committee than is denying the vote (by the mere THREAT of a filibuster that MIGHT not be voted closed!), then the repub's really only need to hold the Committee to THEIR own filibuster.

Call the COmmittee to session.

And leave it that way until these nominations were voted out. Permanent Judicial Comittee session until all business was voted, or until Biden wanted to vote on his precious BCS College Football Bowl hearing.

Or Kennedy wanted to use the bathroom. Or get a drink. Or eat.

[Sabertooth]

We should revise our expectations of the GOP Senators.
Not all members of the phylum chordata possess backbones.

Sea squirts, or tunicates, are an example.

[StoneColdGOP]

This would require only 51 votes, but Frist does not even have that many today because of reluctance to tamper with the traditions of the Senate.

Time to take a baseball bat to the Senate's traditions. And to Sen. Frist's tenure as "Leader".

[VRWC_minion]

The rules are agreed to when the senate forms for each session. Its not unconstitutional for the senate to set its own rules. Get over it, the GOP doesn't have enough votes unless it wants to dislodge a decades old agreement on how to handle filibusters.

Only those living in fantasy land cannot see that such an action cuts both ways and has a political cost for which one could win the immediate battle and lose the war.

For the present, the math is simple. 60 is greater than 40.

[VRWC_minion]

I missed where the bottle neck was the committee, last I recall the GOP moved the nominees out of committee on majority vote.

[xzins]

Read it again carefully. Frist isn't the problem. You'll notice that what they're saying is that there are Republican Senators (rinos) who will NOT support use of the nuclear option.

[AbsoluteJustice]

Have you ever read the constitution?

Can you show me where it states that a SUPER MAJORITY (60 votes) is required for a judicial nomination? I can point to you where 4 instances of a super majority is mentioned and none of which apply to judicial nominations.

The constitution is simple it states that a MAJORITY VOTE (51 votes) is required to allow a judicial nominee to be appointed. It also states in the constitution that Judicial nominees are to be VOTED ON by the SENATE. Key word here is VOTES on the floor once the president has nominated said judge. So please enlighten me as to where in the constitution a SUPER MAJORITY is required for judicial nominations? Don't you think if the founders wanted that they would have listed it as they carefully did with the 4 other instances in which a super majority is required?

The wording is simple
Super majority = 60 votes
Majority = 51 votes.
It is that simple
Read up on your constitution and get back to me.

[BooBoo1000]

The Repubs are a spineless lot, and not one whit different from the Dems. I wonder if some organization, could not raise money, ie Free Republic, and take out full page ads in major newspapers showing the pictures of the Nominees for Judicial positions that Bush and Company have left hanging in the wind.

I would be glad to donate to such a project and bet many other Freepers would chip in a few bucks and bring this thing to the public attention.

We need leadership in the White House and the Senate, both positions now are held by empty suits.

I was born and raised a Republican, but will find it hard to Support Bush again, he talks the talk, but does not do the walk.

[ImpBill]

My exact thoughts when I saw the title to the thread.

[Unicorn]

MIA

[ImpBill]

Lamar Alexander is apparently one of the Senators holding up the bill to extend the moratorium on Internet taxes. Another conservative Republican who loves to see government control and taxation over all things.

[VRWC_minion]

You apparently skipped over the part where the senate can form its own rules.

[VRWC_minion]

The Repubs are a spineless lot, and not one whit different from the Dems

Unfortunately, no one seems to care in the general public, therefore what you suggest didn't work back when it was tried earlier this year.

[NYC Republican]

Lamar Alexander is apparently one of the Senators holding up the bill to extend the moratorium on Internet taxes. Another conservative Republican who loves to see government control and taxation over all things

I was surprised to see him doing that. Voinovich, on the other hand, is becoming a Chafee-type RINO.