Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush vows bitter end fight for justices [GOP considers "nuke option}
Human Events Online ^ | John Gizzi

Posted on 11/14/2003 2:12:28 PM PST by sdk7x7

by John Gizzi Posted Nov 14, 2003

As Senate Republicans last week conducted a marathon 30 hours of debate to protest and spotlight the Democrats' unprecedented filibuster to block confirmation of appeals court judges, President Bush called three of his nominees into the Oval Office and threw down the gauntlet to the obstructionist Senate Democrats.

Flanked by Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, California Supreme Court Justice Janice Brown and California Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl, Bush said, "These people deserve an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor, and yet a few senators are playing politics and it's wrong and it's shameful."

"I will stand with them to the bitter end," said the President.

The Senate at that point was already 15 hours into the GOP-led 30-hour marathon. At the conclusion of the speaking, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R.-Tenn.) was expected to bring up Senate Resolution 138, a proposal to gradually lower the number of votes needed to invoke cloture and end debate on presidential nominations.

Currently, 60 votes are needed—an impossible threshold for a GOP that controls only 51 Senate seats. Frist's plan is to propose a succession of resolutions that would progressively lower number of votes needed to invoke cloture. Because Senate rule changes now require a two-thirds vote, there is no chance any of these resolutions will pass.

That is why Senate insiders believe that losing these votes to the uncompromising Democrats may increase both popular and Senate support for the so-called "nuclear option."

Under this scenario, a Republican senator would make a point of order that it is unconstitutional to require more than 51 votes to confirm a presidential nominee and request a ruling from the chair. If the chair, as planned, rules that the point of order is correct, a simple majority of the full Senate—which the Republicans have—could uphold his ruling, effectively changing Senate rules to force simple up-or-down majority votes on nominations. Filibusters would be eliminated for presidential nominations, period.

That would mean all of President Bush's currently stalled judicial nominees would be confirmed. It would also significantly increase the chances that Bush could confirm a conservative to the Supreme Court—especially, if, as widely expected, the Republicans pick up Senate seats next November.

Many on Capitol Hill fear, however, that playing out this scenario could have an almost cataclysmic effect on the almost evenly divided Senate—whether the GOP move succeeds or even if a few Republicans bolt and allow the Democrats to overturn the ruling from the chair. As one senior Republican aide told me, "If Republicans can't come up with the 51 votes, just trying it would be akin to dropping a bomb on a neighboring state but failing to kill the heads of government. They are not going to say 'You missed!' and leave it at that. They're going to retaliate in a big way. So you've got one bullet and you can't shoot and miss."

The hawks on this issue aren't just worried about defectors from among the usual suspects—Senators Lincoln Chafee (R.I.), Olympia Snowe (Maine), Susan Collins (Me.), Ted Stevens (Alaska) and Arlen Specter (Pa.)—they are also worried about some ordinarily more reliable conservatives getting cold feet.

"The reason Republicans don't have all 51 of their senators," said a Senate aide, "is that a number of them—and not just the non-conservatives—are worried that changing the rules would make it easier someday for a President Hillary Clinton to get her judicial nominees through the Senate." Still, the "nuclear option," the aide said, comes up at "almost every meeting of the [Senate] Republican Conference." Its strongest proponents are Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (Utah) and Conference Chairman Rick Santorum (Pa.).

The argument against going nuclear, however, falls short in the face of the fact that Republicans basically rubber-stamped President Bill Clinton's judicial nominees. For example, Only three conservatives—Senators Jesse Helms (N.C.), Don Nickles (Okla.) and Bob Smith (N.H.)—voted against confirming far left-wing ACLU lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court. When Nickles retires next year, all three of those fighting conservatives will be gone from the Senate.

Frist spokeswoman Amy Call told HUMAN EVENTS, "At this time, all options are open." Earlier this year, Frist, himself, spoke to me about the nuclear option, saying, "I carry it in my pocket." He was concerned, however, about not having the votes to pass it. Asked about the long-term wounds it might inflict on the Senate, the former surgeon deadpanned: "Remember—I used to cut people's hearts out for a living."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 2003 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: bush43; carolynkuhl; janicebrown; judicialnominees; nuclearoption; priscillaowen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last
hmmm, interesting analysis
1 posted on 11/14/2003 2:12:31 PM PST by sdk7x7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sdk7x7
Go Nuclear!!!!!
2 posted on 11/14/2003 2:16:18 PM PST by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sdk7x7
Dear President Bush.

Two words, sir:

Recess Appointments.

Regards,

L

3 posted on 11/14/2003 2:18:02 PM PST by Lurker (Some people say you shouldn't kick a man when he's down. I say there's no better time to do it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sdk7x7
"Remember—I used to cut people's hearts out for a living."

Hmmm. Good line! But in dealing with people like Kennedy, Clinton, and Schumer(sp?), is Frist qualified for microsurgery?

4 posted on 11/14/2003 2:22:14 PM PST by NicknamedBob (Tag line roulette wheel spinning, ... spinning, ... (FREE SPIN))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sdk7x7
"I will stand with them to the bitter end," said the President

I love W.

I don't love that statement.

"Stand with" is passive. "Bitter end" accepts Demo victory.

What he should have said is....

"I will take whatever actions necessary to see to it that the Senate minority stops shirking its Constitutional duty and obstructing the rule of law, and votes on my appointments."

Dan
5 posted on 11/14/2003 2:23:15 PM PST by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
Recess Appointments.

Absoluely. The senate would have to vote on them in one year, but that would take a majority vote and the dems don't have that. That would be one way to get an up or down vote.

6 posted on 11/14/2003 2:25:07 PM PST by chainsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sdk7x7
Simple solution:

President Bush notifys the US Senate that (so-and-so) will be seated as judge XYZ, UNLESS the US Senate votes to disapprove the nominee and that failure to vote, either way, will be considered to be the Senate's 'consent' to the nominee.

7 posted on 11/14/2003 2:27:10 PM PST by You Gotta Be Kidding Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sdk7x7
a GOP that controls only 51 Senate seats

Um...isn't this wrong?

Thought we had 52.

8 posted on 11/14/2003 2:30:04 PM PST by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chainsaw
The Democrats couldn't just block the vote the same way they are now?
9 posted on 11/14/2003 2:31:29 PM PST by Republican Wildcat (November 4, 2003. The day the 32-year Democrat lock on Kentucky came to an end.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: hellinahandcart
WE have 52...plus Zell Miller....
10 posted on 11/14/2003 2:31:33 PM PST by Keith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sdk7x7
"The reason Republicans don't have all 51 of their senators...is that a number of them...are worried that changing the rules would make it easier someday for a President Hillary Clinton to get her judicial nominees through the Senate."

What pathetic Minority Loser think. The Republicans are the Majority Party and it is hardly in the Republican interest to let the diminishing numbers of Democrats act like a Majority. Queen Victoria had it right:

"We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat; they do not exist."

ATTRIBUTION: Victoria (1819–1901), British monarch, Queen of Great Britain and Ireland. Letter, December 1899, to statesman A.J. Balfour, during the “Black Week” of the Boer War.

11 posted on 11/14/2003 2:31:42 PM PST by Plutarch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: You Gotta Be Kidding Me
President Bush notifys the US Senate that (so-and-so) will be seated as judge XYZ, UNLESS the US Senate votes to disapprove the nominee and that failure to vote, either way, will be considered to be the Senate's 'consent' to the nominee.

I like that. Any chance of A). them doing it, and B). its legality?

12 posted on 11/14/2003 2:34:26 PM PST by Aeronaut (In my humble opinion, the new expression for backing down from a fight should be called 'frenching')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
Estrada refused a recess appointment.

That is not the answer.

They should stay in session 24/7 until a proper vote can occur.

Keep them there through New Years eve if they have to.

13 posted on 11/14/2003 2:34:28 PM PST by Guillermo (Proud Infidel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
Yeah, make some recess appointments.

Pick a few notables for recess appointments.

Robert Bork.
Newt Gingrich.
JC Watts.
Ward Connely.
Miguel Estrada.
Linda Chavez.
Linda Tripp.
Neal Bush. (if JFK can nominate his brother as AG, then George can nominate his brother for a judgeship).
etc . . .

14 posted on 11/14/2003 2:34:36 PM PST by PokeyJoe (Islam, A religion of pieces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Keith
I knew we were celebrating more than a two-seat pickup last November. :D

15 posted on 11/14/2003 2:34:37 PM PST by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: chainsaw
The senate would have to vote on them in one year

Can you document the requirement for the senate to vote on them?

16 posted on 11/14/2003 2:38:21 PM PST by tysont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: hellinahandcart
No, it's 51.
17 posted on 11/14/2003 2:39:02 PM PST by Republican Wildcat (November 4, 2003. The day the 32-year Democrat lock on Kentucky came to an end.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sdk7x7
Tell the DIMs in the Senate that when they confirm these judges they can come the next day to the White House and see that "INTEL" they are so worried about. They can even bring "JOE WILSON"!

18 posted on 11/14/2003 2:42:04 PM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hellinahandcart
I knew we were celebrating more than a two-seat pickup last November. :D

That's exactly what we were celebrating. There are 51 in the Republican caucus and 49 in the Democrat caucus (although Zell Miller is AWOL on the Dem side).

19 posted on 11/14/2003 2:42:07 PM PST by Republican Wildcat (November 4, 2003. The day the 32-year Democrat lock on Kentucky came to an end.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sdk7x7
The fear, regarding the nuclear option, is totally unfounded. Republicans are afraid that a rule change now would make it difficult to block the Democrats at some future date when Rats are a majority. Does anyone in his right mind believe that the Democrats wouldn't make that rule change themselves if minority Republicans were blocking appointments?

The Republicans have a choice. Do it now and take some advantage, or wait until the Democrats do it when they are in power and they completely stack the courts. The Dems would even have the audacity to change the rules, and then change them back after they get their way.

20 posted on 11/14/2003 2:45:58 PM PST by pjd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson