GOP Senator Threatens Lawsuit Over Judicial Filibusters

CNSNEWS.com ^ | 11/17/03 | Randy Hall

[BJungNan]

SO why don't the republicans just shut down ALL business of the Senate. This is laughable. The Dems know just how far the Republicans will go and they can calculate every move.

Like their stupid marathon debate. Great idea guys, announce ahead of time when your engagement is going to end.

The best way to negotiate is to go one step further than your opponant believes you are willing to go. For the Republicans, that would be something just past whimpering and calls for "serious criticism".

It is time for new Republican leadership. The get-along-gang are fools and buffoons.

[jpl]

Another loser strategy. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent a filibuster of a judicial nominee.

This is true, and really the responsibility should fall on the Senate to resolve the problem that they themselves have created. The only problem is that if things continue going in the direction they're headed, this could rise to the level of a full-blown constitutional crisis. With a 50-50 nation, getting a filibuster-proof majority nowadays is virtually impossible.

[Huck]

Frist should send a letterto W, with 51 signatures on it, case closed. Let the Democrats take it to the Supreme Court, and to their dwindling base.

They're not going to toss out the Senate rules, nor should they.

[Huck]

this could rise to the level of a full-blown constitutional crisis

Oh I don't know. A half dozen appointments out of 160+? That isn't a crisis.

[TravisBickle]

The Constitutions calls for Advise & Consent. It doesn't demand a vote. I would like to see the Senate send a letter with their consent to the President with at least 51 signatures, and then swear the judges in.

Make the Democrats file the lawsuits.

[edchambers]

If Bush doesn't make "recess appointments" in a few weeks just as Bill Clinton did, then we should start a campaign for everyone to forward their "penis enlargement" spam to the Whitehouse email address.

I like it but I have unfortunately installed a spam filter that blocks that sort of thing.

[Huck]

The Constitutions calls for Advise & Consent. It doesn't demand a vote. I would like to see the Senate send a letter with their consent to the President with at least 51 signatures, and then swear the judges in. Make the Democrats file the lawsuits.

It's a funny idea, but not a good one. The Senate as a body has rules and they should be followed. If they want to get rid of judicial filibuster, they should pass a rule. Something tells me that if in the future there is a Dem president and a Dem congress, Hatch and the others won't still be calling for this rule change. Neither will we.

[TravisBickle]

While it is against the Senate rules, it may be a good time to take a look at those rules.

But how do they change the rules without being filibustered?

Seems like a vicious cycle to me. The only answer is to have a 60 seat majority.

[jpl]

Oh I don't know. A half dozen appointments out of 160+? That isn't a crisis.

You can't compare all those minor ones to the appointments to the Circuit Courts of Appeal, which are the ones that are getting filibustered. And eventually there is going to be at least one, and possible two or more U.S. Supreme Court vacancies. That's when we're going to see the crisis really kick into high gear.

[ClintonBeGone]

Didn't hear the show..but in effect, Santorum's words could confirm my startegy..i.e..."the nuclear option is dud, NOW.."...that makes a little mroe sense, doesn't it...also, those Pubbies on the fence might be a little more inclined to get off

He didn't say they were undecided. I believe he said they were opposed. I would agree with your point if it were one or two republicans, but 12? that's almost 25% of the caucus. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[jwalsh07]

It's a non-justicable political question as well it should be. To allow encroachment of the courts into the cambers of the other two branches of government allowing precedent to be set for same is lunacy.

You're right here Huck. Good job.

[jwalsh07]

I should have added, IMHO. :-}

[Political Junkie Too]

With legislation, it is reasonable to extend debate if enough of a minority feel that they didn't have sufficient time to make their case. With advice and consent, the President is asking the Senate for their advice and consent. It is unconstitutional for a Senator from New York to prevent a Senator from Texas from advising the President, and then consenting or withholding consent.

That is the crux of the unconstitutional filibuster -- a minority of Senators is preventing other Senators from advising the President.

-PJ

[Lancey Howard]

Bump for Lindsey Graham's guts.
If only we had a lot more like him.