Dems Intend to Filibuster Bush's Judicial Nominees ... Again

NewsMax.com ^ | 12/01/04 | Paul Weyrich

[penowa]

"You can't blame the Democrats for filibustering."

Unfortunately, I have to agree with your assessment of the situation since it is the pattern of Republicans in the past. I just hope they realize that they have milked this issue for all it's worth and it will not be to their advantage to try to use it again in '06 to get more Republicans elected to the senate. If they do not act like the majority party now and produce, they will certainly find themselves where they seem to be most comfortable - in the minority once again.

[Spirited]

"I know, I know, until the Republicans get a 99 to 1 majority, they can't stop the Democrats."

Absolutely. That behaviour is so deeply imbedded that one wonders whether they really want or fear the change they continually talk about.

[CyberAnt]

Actually, there's an easier way than that .. it's by changing the rules. It only needs majority to pass. Since the repubs have a majority .. the dems will be outfoxed. Once the rule is changed, each nominee will only need 51 votes to pass - not 60. At least I think that's how it works. Frist has talked about it and so have others from the Senate.

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

Nuclear option is the ANSWER

I agree. Paul Weyrich is usually on target and I usually like his commentary.

However, this fear of breaking the filibuster because it might come back to haunt the Republicans when the RATs are in power is wrong.

We MUST get our judges on the bench now. It is crazy to not do this out of fear of what may happen in ten years when the tables are reversed. We have the strength NOW. We need to act NOW.

To not act will keep the Senate in a go nowhere tug of war for another decade. At the end of Bush's term in Jan. 2009, we need to look back and say "this is what we accomplished" and that MUST include saying we put a large number of judges on the bench who (hopefully) are strict Constitutionalists.

Just imagine saying that "we allowed the Senate DemocRATs to obstruct most of our agenda" (including judicial nominees).

If we do, then we should toss the Republican Party in the dumpster for good.

[dangus]

>>They just lost because they were in Red States. << (paraphrased)
Nahhh... Reid can't be THAT stupid. Surely he knows that ceding red states gives Republicans a 62-Senator starting point. If the Demonrats want to filibuster a nominee, all I can say is: YIPPEE! The filibuster will be broken, and the Republicans will get 60 votes next election.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Another (very effective) way of doing it is to get rid of the dual-track method of doing business. That is, force the donks to filibuster and hold up all other business until the filibuster is over.

[atomopawn]

I don't suppose you have a list of Red state Dems up for election in 2006, by any chance?

[Dave Olson]

Changing the rules might make it possible for the liberals to attack the legislative filibuster when they get back in power. We just can’t take that chance.

That's the thinking of a chump. What leads these Republicans to believe that by restraining themselves now that liberals will act in kind later? If the liberals ever get back in power, they will try to change the rules in their favor whether the Republicans change them now or not. So, they might as well go for it.

[rcocean]

Maybe it's kind of thinking that leads the Repubs to behave like bunch of cringing milquetoasts.

I think filibusters by Repubs on future Democrat Nominees would be just as bad as the current filibusters by the Dumbocrats.

The Senate does not have a right IMO not vote up or down on the presidents nominees. The people elected the president to appoint judges not the senate.

[rcocean]

Maybe it's kind of thinking that leads the Repubs to behave like bunch of cringing milquetoasts.

I think filibusters by Repubs on future Democrat Nominees would be just as bad as the current filibusters by the Dumbocrats.

The Senate does not have a right IMO not vote up or down on the presidents nominees. The people elected the president to appoint judges not the senate.

[Common Tator]

Here is a list of all the senators up for reelection in 2006.

Akaka, Daniel
Allen, George
Bingaman, Jeff
Burns, Conrad
Byrd, Robert
Cantwell, Maria
Carper, Thomas
Chafee, Lincoln
Clinton, Hillary
Conrad, Kent
Corzine, Jon
Dayton, Mark
DeWine, Mike
Ensign, John
Feinstein, Dianne
Frist, Bill
Hatch, Orrin
Hutchison, Kay
Jeffords, James
Kennedy, Edward
Kohl, Herb
Kyl, Jon
Lieberman, Joseph
Lott, Trent
Lugar Richard
Nelson, Bill
Nelson, Ben
Santorum, Rick
Sarbanes, Paul
Snowe, Olympia
Stabenow, Debbie
Talent, James
Thomas, Craig

[ConservativeLawStudent]

I had not heard of this 2nd option. Indeed, it is a much better alternative to the so called "nuclear" option.

[ConservativeLawStudent]

I remember reading a quote from a Dem Senator who said exactly that - there is a procedure to stop them and if the GOP didnt like their behavior then maybe they should just change that rule.

I say it's about time we take him up on the offer.

[ConservativeLawStudent]

The only states where judges will be an issue is Nebraska. Incumbent Ben Nelson v. likely challenger Gov. Mike Johanns. I would imagine Ben Nelson will vote consistently w/ Republicans to invoke cloture to avoid making judges an issue.

For what it's worth, other interesting races:

WV - Open seat? Will KKK Byrd retire? Or be committed?

NJ - Open seat? Corzine is running for Gov

MN - Mark Dayton has just recently made a fool of himself once again, whining about not getting invited on the field trip. MN has some potentially great candidates to challenge, hopefully Mark Kennedy.

WA - Potentially vulnerable Dem. incumbant. Plus, voters will get their first opportunity to react to the latest election fiasco the Dems are trying to pull off. Can't imagine that it won't turn more than a few off.

[Publius Valerius]

The second option is better? You mean where 50+ members of Congress completely deliberately ignore and then re-write the constitution?

Can you explain to me how this is a "good" result?

Sorry, I like my congressmen following the constitution, not blatantly urinating on it when they don't find it convenient.

[kevkrom]

If the Democrats try this again, they're just stupid. It goes beyond the consequences of their current losses. In the last term, they at least had the pretense of a moral high ground, where they could claim that due to the controversial nature of the 2000 election, that they were acting to preserve the status quo until the 2004 elections were over.

Well, now those elections are over, and Bush has scored a clear and non-controversial (except to some seriously deluded DUmmies) victory, they don't even have that canard to fall back on.

[An.American.Expatriate]

Based on past performances, my money is on Hell freezing over. . . .

The following is supposedly an actual question given on a University of Washington chemistry mid-term. The answer by one student was so "profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well.

Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.

One student, however, wrote the following:

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.

As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different Religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell.

With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, "it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you, and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct...leaving only Heaven thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting "Oh my God."

THIS STUDENT RECEIVED THE ONLY "A

I could not resist . . .

[sport]

Thanks! i that.

[sport]

Correction:

Post # 38 should have read as follows: Thanks! I enjoyed that.

[Defiant]

Changing the rules might make it possible for the liberals to attack the legislative filibuster when they get back in power. We just can&#8217;t take that chance.

What Weyrich doesn't realize is that the next time that the Dems get control of Congress, they are going to eliminate the filibuster, both as to legislation and as to judges. The days of letting a minority stop the majority are over, for both sides. They are more determined to get their way than we are.

So, keeping the filibuster for that day when Dems are back in power in the far distant future will not protect future Republican minorities. Better to eliminate the rule at the outset of the session, at least as to judicial nominees. As to legislation, I think there should be time limits to filibusters. It is not the right of the minority to obstruct. To force people to rethink for a while is ok.