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

Skip to comments.

Question on judicial appointments

Posted on 11/03/2004 9:30:53 AM PST by birdsman

I know that there's been a lot of talk on how the Senate won't be able to block judicial nominations anymore, but I don't see how there's much difference. We still don't have the 60 Republicans needed to stop the obstruction. Even though Daschel (sp?) is gone, another democrap will be just as bad. Most of the seats that we picked up were from democraps that voted with us on cloture. How is there any improvement in this area? I really need reassurance.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last

1 posted on 11/03/2004 9:30:54 AM PST by birdsman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: birdsman

If the Democrats hope to make any gains in 2006 they will start cooperating Today.


2 posted on 11/03/2004 9:32:57 AM PST by alisasny (We get 4 more years, you get OBAMA...: ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: birdsman

We need to put serious pressure on Frist to eliminate the filibuster rule. There's nothing in the constitution that provides for it.


3 posted on 11/03/2004 9:33:28 AM PST by 1L
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: birdsman
Either 6 RATS come to our side or they lose bigger in 2006 and we have a GOP lockdown.
4 posted on 11/03/2004 9:33:33 AM PST by glennherman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: birdsman
we'll just have to see.

I'm a bit concerned that all of the appointments have to go through Specter. I think he can easily flipped by Leahy, Kennedy, etc.

Outside of that, I think they will still pick their targets but I don't expect the blanket that we have seen.

5 posted on 11/03/2004 9:33:34 AM PST by WoodstockCat (DNC and John Kerry: Forgers R' Us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alisasny

Otherwise, we may need to hold out two more years and hope for 60! If they keep obstructing, it is a definite possibility.


6 posted on 11/03/2004 9:34:06 AM PST by salorama (No representation without taxation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: birdsman

Plus: Arlen MacSpectre.

I'm wondering similarly.

Dan


7 posted on 11/03/2004 9:35:47 AM 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: birdsman
Someone who knows more than I needs to check what I am about to post.

In 2006 the Senate RATS have more seats up for election than does the GOP. And the GOP had more up this year. With crushing defeats in 2002 and 2004 due to their obstruction and hatred for President Bush they will either realize they better start acting like adults or just rachet it up even more. If they get more extreme they stand a very strong chance of getting annihlated in 2006.

Obstruction and hatred on their part could be the key to massive GOP control of the Senate.

8 posted on 11/03/2004 9:37:40 AM PST by Phantom Lord (Advantages are taken, not handed out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: birdsman
Bush won in Nevada, Reid's home state. 'nuff said.
9 posted on 11/03/2004 9:41:43 AM PST by Max Combined (I gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: birdsman
Way ahead of you. See this post the article was written this AM.
10 posted on 11/03/2004 9:43:38 AM PST by crushkerry (Visit www.crushkerry.com to see John Kerry's positions filleted))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: birdsman

No reason to expect any change. Any nominations that make it through Senate will be from the Specter/Hatch/McCain side of the conservative? spectrum. Ain't gonna be any real conservatives making it through.


11 posted on 11/03/2004 9:45:02 AM PST by diogenes ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: birdsman
If judicial nominees are bottled up in the Senate, you may just see a long period of time in which the Supreme Court must function with fewer than nine members.

To be honest with you, I'm really hoping for a scenario in which most of the justices get old and retire, and every ends in a 2-1 decision with Scalia and Thomas illustrating Souter's utter irrelevance with boring regularity.

12 posted on 11/03/2004 9:48:14 AM PST by Alberta's Child (I made enough money to buy Miami -- but I pissed it away on the Alternative Minimum Tax.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: diogenes ghost

I don't know about that. Specter had a pretty tight sphincter most of the night last night, so he may be more willing to cooperate than we think, knowing that next time, he may not get as much support from the PTB's. As for McCain, I think his goose is cooked. Bush doesn't need him anymore and I think the MSM will not look to him as much since he campaigned for Bush, albeit kicking and screaming the whole way. Bush helped him with campaign finance reform, so he owes Bush one and I have a feeling we'll see a more aggressive Bush this time around.

I suspect the "Texan" in him is about to come out. At least I hope so! Bush need to hit the ground running with nominees. He needs to go public and push for the nominees confirmation ebfore the dims know what hit them. Without the puffster, they may not be as quick to cause a stink.

Add to that the fact we now have a few new Senators who don't have the same linguini spine as some of the others calling themselves Republicans.


13 posted on 11/03/2004 9:51:12 AM PST by Littlejon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: alisasny

Reward some Southern Conservatives.


14 posted on 11/03/2004 9:52:18 AM PST by carlyaxt (carlyaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: birdsman

The nuclear option just got a lot brighter. That is, ruling a filibuster illegal for nominations. Essentially, the Republicans can make a motion that the filibuster is illegal, and then get a ruling by the Senate parlaimentarian. Whatever the parlaimentarian says, he can be overruled by a simple majority. The Republicans were expecting that they did not have the votes in the last congress. Arlen Specter, Orin Hatch, Lincoln Chafee, Sue Collins and Olympia Snowe were suspected of opposing the option. Even if they all defected, and we gained no Democrats (such as strongly pro-life Ben Nelson of Nebraska), we would now still have 50 votes, and a tie-breaker in Dick Cheney.

The only pro-life senator who is now gone is the retiring Zell Miller. Lisa Murkowski is very moderate on social issues, as was her father.

Meanwhile, Harry Reid becomes the Democrat senate leader. He is in very much the same situation Daschle had been: he's from a very pro-life state, and he gets re-elected by telling his constituents that he is a conservative. Maybe that he has seen that obstructionism led to the downfall of Daschle, and the Democrats' hopes of controlling the Senate, he will be much more moderate than Daschle.

Also, many old lions within the Democrat party will be up for re-election or even retiring in two years. Despite the Republicans 10-seat majority in the Senate, 2006' list of defenders will be dominated by Democrats. It looks very good for further pickups.


15 posted on 11/03/2004 9:52:21 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: birdsman

On judges and everything else, the margin that we will have in the next Congress -- and the prospect of future losses -- will cause the opposition to draw back and become more amenable to compromises and offsetting favors. Legislative bargaining is a messy, covert, and often squalid business, but you would be amazed at how many large things get done due to small favors.


16 posted on 11/03/2004 9:53:47 AM PST by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1L
WHen the Supreme Court is down to five Justices, I think SCOTUS will start putting some pressure wherever they can -- and hopefully, the media will start to notice. Doubt it though. Only on Fox and the right side and maybe O'Reilly.

TS

17 posted on 11/03/2004 9:55:25 AM PST by Tanniker Smith (Random Childhood Memory #8: "We can rebuild him. We have the technology.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Everyone is going to be pleasantly surprised on circuit court nominations and, if it comes to pass, Supreme Court nominations.

1. Bush will get a honeymoon for the first part of 2005.

2. We now have a greater working majority in the Senate; we can bribe the last one or two votes we need to break a filibuster.

3. Most importantly, we might not need to break a filibuster. RATS saw the writing on the wall. The next crowd of RATS up in 2006 do not want to face the same fate as Tom Daschle -- seen as obstructionists. They will play ball.

The Senate has been transformed for the 2005-06 legislative session.

Bush might even resubmit Estrada and other circuit nominees.


18 posted on 11/03/2004 9:55:53 AM PST by mwl1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: birdsman
We could have done it already if we had some reasonable leadership in the Senate. Maybe, someday, Tom DeLay will run for Senate.

Now that Sphinctor is OK for another 6, maybe Frist will release some of the dem Senate Judiciary memos that he has been sitting on for a year so as to keep the dems happy.

19 posted on 11/03/2004 9:56:57 AM PST by Tacis (Tom Dashole - Only Ten More Weeks Of Selling Influence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: birdsman
Aha! You raise the right question, but approach it from the wrong direction.

The Advise and Consent Clause of the Constitution gives the Senate the power to approve or reject Presidential appointments by MAJORITY vote. It does not require a 60-vote margin.

The so-called "nuclear option" is quite simple and has been used before. A Republican Senator rises and says, "Mr. President, Point of Order. Under the Constitution, the Cloture Rule cannot apply to judicial nominations." The Chair (Dick Cheney) then rules that "the Point is well taken."

Under Robert's Rules of Order, it takes a only a majority of Senators to uphold the ruling of the Chair. With the changes in the membership of the Senate, Republican squishes like Snowe and Chaffee will become irrelevant. Daschle is gone, and now the obstructionist legacy of Daschle will also be gone once the new Senate is sworn in, in January.

This problem is now solvable once and for all.

Congressman Billybob

Click for latest, "Roosting Chickens, and Results of the 2004 Election"

20 posted on 11/03/2004 9:57:17 AM PST by Congressman Billybob (Visit: www.ArmorforCongress.com please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 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