Posted on 11/12/2004 7:07:37 AM PST by Pfesser
With the pressure now on to break filibusters, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist last night told the Federalist Society that Democrats face a choice — either stop, or face a rules change that will make judicial filibusters a thing of the past.
"The Senate now faces a choice — either we accept a new and destructive practice, or we act to restore constitutional balance," Mr. Frist said in prepared remarks he was set to deliver to the group of conservative legal minds in Washington last night. "One way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end," he said. "The Senate must do what is good, what is right, what is reasonable and what is honorable. The Senate must do its duty."
Mr. Frist last year introduced a rules change for judicial nominations in which each successive vote would reduce the number necessary to defeat a filibuster. The first time a filibuster was voted on, 60 votes would still be required, but the second time would take 57 votes, the third time 54, the fourth time 51, and the fifth time a simple majority.
Before the election Mr. Frist, Tennessee Republican, had predicted that a pickup of three or four seats, though still leaving Republicans shy of the 60 votes needed to guarantee an end to filibusters, probably would persuade Democrats to stop filibustering anyway.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Didn't a confirmation require a simple majority at one time?
Yes but they can filibuster to stop a vote.
Does anyone know when the first Supreme court nominee was filibustered?
First Federal judge??
For any Constitutional/Congressional scholars out there, could someone please give me a nutshell version of what a rules change entails? Can it simply be done in comittee, without Dems being able to circumvent with a Daschle like maneuver, or does it take full legislature introduction subject to a fillibuster itself. Thanks for any info from the lazy guy.
If he stops them -- makes you wonder if the dims would even show up for the next 2 years.
[Naspino]
> If he stops them -- makes you wonder if the dims would even
> show up for the next 2 years.
:) Oooh, don't tantalize me like that, so early in the morning...!
Forget the Specter nonsense, change the rules on filbusters and add one more seat to the committee and Specter is a nonfactor
I believe a rule change requires a simple up or down vote of the full Senate and rule changes are not subject to a filibuster. However, most Senators, even Republicans, like the filibuster. Republicans fear that they may need it one day.
A filibuster on these candidates gives the President nothing. That's not the way I read Article II, Section 2.
"Mr. Frist last year introduced a rules change for judicial nominations in which each successive vote would ..."
That was changed in the early 1800's.
I agree. I believe that to filibuster a Presidential nominee, as opposed to a law, is unconstitutional. But it doesn't matter what I think. It only matters what the SC thinks.
Your right. Thanks. Then, maybe, this would pass.
Kerry won't.
["The Senate must do what is good, what is right, what is reasonable and what is honorable. The Senate must do its duty."]
Somehow I just don't picture Democrats shaking in their boots by that statement. I am praying for Frist to have a backbone. One way he can show democrats he means business is to not allow Specter as Chair of the Judiciary.
However in 1975 the cloture rule was amended by the majority voting to overrrule a ruling by the chair. There was so much consternation at the method, that that rule change was re-changed by a vote of 2/3 of those present.
The majority party that changed the cloture rule by majority vote in 1975?
The Democrats.
Bullshit. Frist hasn't the balls.
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.