***FR HELP REQUESTED for Senate Judiciary Filibuster next Wed/Thurs.!!***

Coalition for Fair Judiciary ^ | 11/8/03 | diotima

[diotima]

***Urgent Help Needed!*** Support the Senate Republican filibuster on judicial nominees!!! STOP THE DEMOCRAT OBSTRUCTION! SUPPORT FRIST-MILLER!
What you can do to help:		Frist Hopes to Change Filibuster Rules by Keith Peters, Washington, D.C., correspondent Senate majority leader wants to lower the number of votes needed to stop Democratic blockade of President Bush's judicial nominees. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has had enough of his Democratic colleagues filibustering conservative judicial nominees — so he has plans to make breaking those filibusters easier. Frist wants to do it by changing Senate rules governing the number of votes needed to override a filibuster. His attempt to do it through a Senate resolution is co-sponsored by Sen. Zell Miller, D-Ga. "It would end the filibuster as applied to the president's nominations," explained Manuel Miranda, a Frist aide. "On the first vote there would be the 60 votes that we have now, and then it would escalate downward so that at the end . . . a simple majority would be able to do what the Constitution calls upon senators to do — have an honest, fair up-or-down vote." Attorney Deanna Mool of the Republican National Lawyers Association said Democrats have applied a litmus test to judicial nominees by blocking Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen and Bill Pryor. "If the Democrats don't like the view of the appointee on certain issues, they just say, 'You know what? We're not going to allow a vote on this guy or woman and we don't have to seat them.' It's just wrong." Miranda said he thinks most people understand how wrong it is, which is why he predicts success for the Republicans. "I think the American people are becoming very aware and sensitized to the issue of the judiciary, the importance of the judiciary and how bad it can be when the judiciary goes awry," he said.
1. CONTACT YOUR SENATORS- Send emails, make phone calls and send faxes. Tell the Republicans you support the fillibuster and Frist-Miller. Tell the Democrats TO STOP THE OBSTRUCTION! 2. CONTACT THE MEDIA- Write letters to the editor at your local newspapers urging the Democrats to TO STOP OBSTRUCTING BUSH'S JUDICIAL NOMINEES! 3. GATHER A GROUP OF PEOPLE AND GO TO YOUR SENATORS OFFICE- Tell them you support the filibuster 4. ATTEND THE FILIBUSTER! CONTACT ME ABOUT GETTING IN. GO AND SHOW SUPPORT FOR THE REPUBLICAN SENATE, BRING COOKIES FOR THEM! THERE WILL BE PRESS CONFERENCES STARTING WEDNESDAY NIGHT AND ALL DAY THURSDAY. TALK RADIO WILL BE BROADCASTING FROM THE SENATE AND RADIO FREE REPUBLIC WILL BE THERE, INTERVIEWING!
SUPPORT THE SENATE WHEN THEY SHOW SOME BACKBONE!!!!!

[hocndoc]

Thanks, MnM, for the ping.

Here's my letter to the local Republican Womens' Club, my friends and family, and (modified) to the local paper:



Two Senate Issues to write and call our Senators about this week (11-10-03)

Make a couple of free calls to the Senate switchboard 1-800-648-3516.
Call, ask for Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison’s office and then call again and ask for Senator John Cornyn’s office.

Follow up by writing the Senators and any news media that you can think of to gain exposure.

Please feel free to quote me!

Ask the Senators to

1. Support the filibuster co-sponsored by Senators Frist and Miller to protest the Obstruction of President Bush’s Judicial Nominees. The leaders of this initiative plan a 30 hour “talkathon” to make their point and introduce information on the floor about the nominees that is being blocked by the Democratic Party who refuse to allow testimony and votes on the floor of the Senate. The Democrats are abusing their ability to block all votes in a way that has never been done in the 200-plus years of the Nation: they refuse to allow an up or down vote on candidates that have been nominated by the President and make purely personal, often false accusations against men and women who are serving well in other Judgeships.

2. Support Senator Frist in demanding that the Democratic members of the Intelligence Committee name the author of the memo circulated by one of them that states:

“”"SUMMARY: Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet we have an important role to play in revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral preemptive war.””

This memo exposed partisan political collaboration to use their positions on the Committee to attack the President.

[ForGod'sSake]

...EVERYONE, to take action to support the filibuster effort.

So, this is essentially a "fight fire with fire" project; using what is for all intents and purposes a filibuster to fight filibusters? Or if this is just a show for the sheeple, what's to keep the media from staying at home, excepting Fox probably. I dunno; maybe I'm missing something here.

In any case, there's some interesting history behind this senate rule from NRO:

May 15, 2003, 10:10 a.m.
Filibuster Preservation
Does the Senate filibuster need reform?

By John C. Eastman

Last week, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist introduced a resolution to change Senate Rule XXII, that provides for unlimited debate in the Senate unless a supermajority of 60 senators votes to invoke cloture and cut off debate. Elaborating on the arguments put forward by several constitutional-law professors (myself included) at a recent hearing before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution — arguing that the use of the filibuster to create a supermajority requirement for judicial confirmations was unconstitutional — Sen. Frist has proposed a sliding scale for cloture votes, with each successive cloture vote requiring fewer votes to succeed until, at the fifth vote, a simply majority of senators present and voting would prevail.

Sen. Frist's plan, based on similar proposals offered by Georgia Democrat Zell Miller earlier this year (Sen. Miller has cosponsored Sen. Frist's proposal) and by Democrats Joe Lieberman and Tom Harkin in 1995, carefully reconciles two competing norms — the Senate's long-standing tradition of full deliberation on important matters, and the constitutional requirement of majority rule. Indeed, Sen. Frist's proposal would effectively return to rules that prevailed in the Senate from its establishment in 1789 until 1806, by which a simply majority could end debate on a motion for the previous question and under which no one was "to speak impertinently or beside the question, superfluously or tediously." Nor is this the first time that the Senate rules have been changed to address an abusive use of the filibuster. Between 1841, when the filibuster was first utilized by Sen. John C. Calhoun to protect slaveholding interests, and 1916, when Sen. Robert LaFollette used it to block legislation that would have authorized merchant ships to arm themselves against unlawful attacks by German U-boats before the United States entered World War I, unanimous consent was required to end a filibuster. During that time, there were nearly a dozen proposals to restore the "motion for the previous question" rule or a cloture rule, but Sen. LaFollette's filibuster was the last straw: In 1917, the Senate adopted the first cloture rule, providing that debate could be ended by a vote of 2/3 of the senators present and voting.

When that rule began to be abused by the use of a filibuster to block procedural motions not subject to the 2/3 cloture vote (a practice that rendered the cloture option meaningless), the Senate amended its cloture rule in 1949 to extend to procedural motions, but in a compromise increased the vote required to 2/3 of the full Senate rather than 2/3 of the senators present and voting. During the 1950s, there were several attempts to reduce the number necessary to invoke cloture from 2/3 to a simply majority, and several others to provide a two-tiered cloture rule, whereby a 2/3 vote was required initially but a simply majority vote would suffice after a reasonable period for debate, between 12 and 15 days. Additional amendments were proposed during the 1960s until, in 1975, the cloture rule was amended to allow cloture by a vote of 3/5 of the Senate (today's 60-vote requirement). Finally, in 1995, Sen. Harkin proposed to establish a declining vote requirement for cloture, so that by the 4th cloture vote, a simple majority of the Senate would suffice to end debate and allow the Senate to proceed to a vote on the merits of the matter at hand.

In short, ever since the Senate in 1806 abolished the majority vote mechanism to end debate, its history has been punctuated by abuse of what amounted to a minority veto, and successive efforts in response to bolster the ability of the majority ultimately to prevail. Sen. Frist's proposal last week, like Sen. Harkin's 1995 proposal, would complete that task.

One monumental hurdle stands in the way of this sensible reform, however; Senate Rule XXII currently provides that the filibuster rule can only be changed by a 2/3 vote, a provision that was first enacted back when Dwight Eisenhower was president and southern Democrats were using the filibuster to block civil-rights legislation. As constitutional-law scholars across the ideological spectrum have noted, that supermajority requirement is patently unconstitutional, for it allows a prior Senate to impose its will on the current Senate and deprive the people of their ability to effect change through the majoritarian political process. Liberal U.S.C. Law Professor Erwin Chemerinsky has written, for example, that "entrenchment of the filibuster violates a fundamental constitutional principle: One legislature cannot bind subsequent legislatures." Lloyd Cutler, former counsel to Presidents Carter and Clinton, has contended that the "requirements of 60 votes to cut off debate and a two-thirds vote to amend the rules are both unconstitutional." Conservative law professors John McGinnis and Michael Rappaport have contended that "the Constitution prohibits legislative entrenchment" such as that effected by Rule XXII. At last Tuesday's hearing, Catholic Law School Dean Doug Kmiec, Northwestern Law School Professor Steven Calabresi, and constitutional scholar Bruce Fein all joined with me in affirming that view.

Thus, any attempt to allow 1/3 of the Senate to veto Sen. Frist's proposed rules change would be unconstitutional. If the Senate does not itself so rule, any member of the Senate whose vote is diluted as a result, or any pending nominee who has already received the support of a majority of the Senate but whose confirmation vote has been blocked by an abusive use of the filibuster, would have standing to challenge the rule in court. Sen. Frist's sensible reform should be approved before it gets to that, so that the majority can ultimately prevail when the time for reasonable debate has expired. As Sen. John Cornyn, quoting former Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge, noted at the outset of last Tuesday's hearing, "To vote without debating is perilous, but to debate and never vote is imbecile."

— John C. Eastman is professor of law at Chapman University School of Law and director of the Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.

Michigander's piece in #64 indicates to me that Frist already has the parliamentary wherewithall to get the job done but he's afraid to use it for fear of what the nasty Dims may do in the future. IOW, it appears Frist is still making nice with the useful idiots on the other side of the aisle. I'm surprised Michigander didn't get any responses to his reply. To me it's revealing the Pubbies as being ill-suited at fighting the treasonous behavior of the Dims:

SNOW: All right. So the staging is, you may keep them overnight for dramatic effect. Then you may go ahead and try to get a rules change that could be filibustered. And if that fails, then you call upon the parliamentarian to say, it's a majority vote...

Thanks fer the ping Meek

FGS

[onyx]

I think Boxer has me blocked. LOL! Seriously, both e-mails have been returned. Not so with Di-fi but I haven't gotten a response from her either.

[MeekOneGOP]

My pleasure. Thank you !

bttt for the early morning crowd !! ...

[MeekOneGOP]

Way to go !!

[Churchjack]

BUMP

[Puddleglum]

Bump!

[hoosiermama]

Write mine, Evan Bayh, Indiana. He's suppose to be on the fence???????

[MeekOneGOP]

My pleasure. Thank you for the info there ! ...

In short, ever since the Senate in 1806 abolished the majority vote mechanism to end debate, its history has been punctuated by abuse of what amounted to a minority veto, and successive efforts in response to bolster the ability of the majority ultimately to prevail. Sen. Frist's proposal last week, like Sen. Harkin's 1995 proposal, would complete that task.

< snip >

Thus, any attempt to allow 1/3 of the Senate to veto Sen. Frist's proposed rules change would be unconstitutional. If the Senate does not itself so rule, any member of the Senate whose vote is diluted as a result, or any pending nominee who has already received the support of a majority of the Senate but whose confirmation vote has been blocked by an abusive use of the filibuster, would have standing to challenge the rule in court. Sen. Frist's sensible reform should be approved before it gets to that, so that the majority can ultimately prevail when the time for reasonable debate has expired. As Sen. John Cornyn, quoting former Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge, noted at the outset of last Tuesday's hearing, "To vote without debating is perilous, but to debate and never vote is imbecile."

Imbecile. Means DemocRAT !!

with no offense intended to the Three Stooges ! ...

[Txslady]

Contacted them already - Thanks for the ping Flyer! :o)

[ClintonBeGone]

We have been complaining about the lack of Republican backbone. Now lets show support when they grow one. We are asking for members of the forum to help keep this thread bumped and urge your friends, family, EVERYONE, to take action to support the filibuster effort.

I admire your spunk, but think about what's going to happen. The GOP is going to go on a, what, 24/48 hour filibuster of a filibuster? It only takes one dem on the floor during the debate to prevent the closure vote. They'll do that and we'll end up looking silly and only empower the other side. Another example of our GOP naive unaffected simplicity.

[hocndoc]

I've alerted our local Repubican Women's club, writtent the San Antonio Express News and the New Braunfels Herald Zeitung, and called the Main Texas Offices of Senator Hutchison and Senator Cornyn. Told 'em to expect a lot of calls at the Washington Offices, and that I thought I'd try the State offices, instead. Bragged on Cornyn and played nice with Hutchison's office. (I promised to be smiling at her at the Texas Federation of Republican Women Convention this weekend, so now I'll have to be good.)

Vanity Bump!

[MeekOneGOP]

ha! ha! Excellent ! Have fun ! ...

[MeekOneGOP]

Thread 2 HERE

[Uncle Jaque]

RE:

" I'm sighing along with you as I'm also in New York.
I receive many requests to e-mail my Senators, but never bother with these two. "

I've pretty much gotten to a similar point of resignation with our two RINO Senators from Maine; SNOWE and COLLINS, neither one of whom seem to have ever seen a tax or an abortion that they didn't like.

They will, in all probablility, be siding with the Hitlary/Teddy K. faction on this one, as they are rather wont to do.

I've previously written and called them so much that I have probably been on their "Kook List" for quite some time now.

Good Luck!

[bjcintennessee]

bump

[SteelTrap]

test

[SteelTrap]

test

[SteelTrap]

[pctech]

Ok, I see that they are wanting to end the current rules about filibusters and to make it easier to end these damned obstructionists. BUT, my concern is this: Do we have the votes to change the current rules. Can anyone answer this?