Posted on 11/18/2004 10:38:30 AM PST by GeneralHavoc
The good news is that GOP Leadership is not letting him off the hook easy. Notice that Senate leaders rejected his first draft.
Specter, who supports abortion rights, also is pledging a strong predisposition to support the president's nominees for the bench, according to these sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The Pennsylvania senator's draft statement affirms that he will not impose a litmus test on nominees based on the issue of abortion, but does not include a blanket pledge to vote for them.
Specter's written statement, apparently undergoing changes, largely covers positions he has staked out in public statements in recent days. Even so, several GOP sources said one early version was deemed unacceptable by Senate leaders in a meeting on Wednesday, particularly on the contentious issue of changing Senate procedures to eliminate the possibility of a filibuster by opponents of a nomination.
There is a lot of precedent for successive Senate bodies abiding by the rules of previous Senates. They been doing it for about 200 years now. I don't think the Supreme Court would allow the Republicans to make up the rules as they go.
If we actually could legally change the rules then we will have to live with the consequences when rats or another party gain a majority and the "tyranny of the minority" is no longer available to stop them.
But how many DEMS are anti-abortion ?
In the Senate there was Zell Miller who is retiring and Harry Reid who now has to go to the dark side as Minority Leader. Ben Nelson of Nebraska might be pro-life. I haven't figured him out yet.
So with Zell's retirement the total is somehwere between 2 and 0.
If ALL the hard core RINOS left you COULD lose the Senate, barely. But then the Dims wouldn't have any spies, moles and provocateurs at Republican strategy sessions. Therefore they won't do it.
That's why I pointed out the "de facto" aspect of judicial confirmation. The Senate can put into existence any rules it wants to, but not if it causes a fundamental change in the actual number needed for confirmation, which the judicial filibuster clearly has. Any such rule can, and should, be ruled out of order by the chair, because it effectively amends the Constitutional requirement without an actual amendment passing.
Your point about breaking cloture is only partially correct, I believe. I may be mistaken here, but I believe all that is needed is for the Senate Majority leader to appeal to the chair (Dick Cheney) to rule the judicial filibuster out of order with regard to Senate rules, and that kicks in the rule where each cloture vote results in a diminishing majority needed to invoke cloture (57, then 54, then 51).
The question, IMHO, is not whether or not they can do it - they can. They have the votes.
The question is the 'Rat response. They threatened to completely shut down the Senate in the last Congress. Now, with a good hearty electoral splash of reality, including Tiny Tom enjoying retirement, you have to wonder how quick they will be to continue that threat.
Scary!, McCain would do it too. I trust him about as much as I trust Specter.
The rats cheat and lie and steal. That is sad, but I admire the Republicans for not following in the rat's footprints. Over the last 4 years we have confirmed some excellent judges. Your characterization of the Republican Party as "pacifist" is an opinion and an ignorant one IMO.
If we set the precedent that we will change previous Senate rules without regard to rules that are now in place then anything goes. I don't see how one assumes that a brand new rule allowing filibuster for legislation but not for judicial nominations, will not evolve into a no filibuster rule on all legislation once if and when the 'rats gain control again.
You haven't been keeping up.
A point of order would be raised on the constitutionality of the filibuster in advise and consent. The chair would rule it unconstitutional. The ruling would be objected to by the Dims. The question of the ruling on the point of order would be put up to a simple majority vote as allowed under current rules. And assuming you hold at least 50 Republicans plus the Veep the filibuster rule changes on advice and consent.
Ah, ok. Thank you for the response. Deeply appreciate it.
It's based in reality. There was no fight against Ruth Bader Gisberg and she had as much legal opinion baggage as anyone ever to face Supreme Court nomination.
If we set the precedent that we will change previous Senate rules without regard to rules that are now in place then anything goes. I don't see how one assumes that a brand new rule allowing filibuster for legislation but not for judicial nominations, will not evolve into a no filibuster rule on all legislation once if and when the 'rats gain control again.
Senate rules are just that, Senate rules. They are not etched in stone or in the Constitution or anything. Senate rules change all the time. The best example is this term limits for committee chairs. That was a 1994 change. The Dems will change any rule they darn well feel like changing when they get back in. They are nervy enough to exercise power when they have power. I begrudgingly admire them for that, and that alone.
In fact filibustering circuit court nominees is a change in tradition and based on an (broad) interpretation of the Senate rules.
Filibusters are for LEGISLATION. Always have been.
Fillibusters on judges is wrong.
I don't care who is in charge.
You can use various procedural maneuvers to delay and get the minority view in there, but don't fillibuster.
I would like the Republicans to act like they won the election, because they did. That means the Republican agenda, not Senator Spectre's. If he can't back that agenda then he shouldn't be the chairman of the committee.
May I ask a stupid question: If Specter's the kinda guy they have to insist sign an airtight pledge, why not just call the whole thing off and make someone else chairman?!
Let's see now, he agrees to give all GW's appointments an up or down vote...So what exactly will his function be? Not only that but GW is gone in four, Snarlin Arlen has a new Six year term.
Why would Specter want to walk around looking like a rubber stamp, which this agreement will surely hang on him?
Hatch just announced that Specter has the full support of all the current members, so just buck up and take it. We have been had.
good points keep your letters and e-mails pouring into your local congressmen.
Based on what? Do you make that assesment?
The Supreme Court has exactly SQUAT to say about Senate rules. Furthermore no Senate can bind a future Senate, because the future Senate has exactly the same power to change a rule as the preceding Senate.
Anyone know how many of the current Senators were formerly Democrats? I can think of a couple. Senator Trent (Girlie Man) Lott, Senator Shelby... feel free to ad your own to the list.
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.