Posted on 01/04/2005 2:06:11 PM PST by hinterlander
Majority Leader Bill Frist (R.-Tenn.) said Tuesday he wouldn't change the Senate's filibuster rule at the start of the 109th Congress, essentially preserving the Democrats' ability to block President Bush's judicial nominees from winning Senate confirmation.
In a speech Tuesday opening the 109th Congress, the GOP leader instead called for cooperation among Republicans and Democrats. "I seek cooperation, not confrontation," Frist said. "Cooperation does not require support for the nominees. Cooperation simply means voting judicial nominees brought to the floor up or down."
Former Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah), writing for HUMAN EVENTS last month, wanted to change Senate Rule XXII, which governs the filibuster, this week. Hatch noted that only 51 votes would be needed (as opposed to 67 once the Senate convenes) to change the rule, thereby preventing a minority of Democrats from permanently holding up a nominee. Hatch’s plan would give Democrats time to debate a nominee, but would eventually cut off discussion after four votes on the Senate floor.
Frist did not completely rule out a change to Rule XXII in the future--"I reserve the right to propose changes … and do not acquiesce to carrying over all the rules from the last Congress," he said--but a Senate aide told HUMAN EVENTS it would be much more difficult to make changes during the middle of the Senate's session as opposed to the beginning.
Frist's reluctance to go along with Hatch's plan--despite offering a Senate resolution in 2003 that did essentially the same thing--leaves Republicans with limited options to counter the Democrat-led filibusters. Because Republicans control only 55 seats-- five short of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster--they are likely stuck in the same situation they faced in the 108th Congress when Democrats successfully blocked 10 of Bush's nominees.
"Some I know have suggested that the filibusters of the last Congress are reason enough to offer a procedural change today, right here and right now," Frist said Tuesday in his statement. "But at this moment I do not chose that path. Our Democratic colleagues have new leadership, and in the spirit of bipartisanship, I want to extend my hand across the aisle."
Democrats, however, have shown little willingness to cooperate with Frist and allow the Senate to vote on Bush's judicial nominees. In fact, when Bush renominated 20 judicial candidates on Dec. 23 who didn't win confirmation in the 108th Congress, Democrats immediately pounced on the President.
"I was extremely disappointed to learn today that the president intends to begin the new Congress by resubmitting the nomination of extremist judicial nominees," Minority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) said in a statement at the time. "Last Congress, Senate Democrats worked with the President to approve 204 judicial nominees, rejecting only 10 of the most extreme."
I thought it was pretty good, too, and a reasoned approach to the problem that doesn't create new problems at the moment, but reminds the Dems that the axe could fall at any time unless they behave.
Human Events doesn't seem to have done a very fair job of depicting it. And of course, most people don't take the time to read what Frist actually said.
On Hannity, Frist gave me the impression he is completely comfortable with the Senate rule change. Almost matter of fact.
Frist vowed late last year to get Bush's nominees to an up or down vote, and I believe him. Whatever dances he feels he needs to do to accomplish that is his call. If he fails, I'll call him on that, but until then he can tapdance all he wants in my opinion.
Great, in exchange for a campaign issue, the judiciary either continues to make up their own laws or backlogs cases into the next century for lack of bench appointees.
Wait and see....
The determining factor in Lott's departure was Bush's refusal to support him. Had the President stood behind Lott, the Conference would have ultimately lined up and the schmuck would still (God help us) be Majority Leader.
Bush is not just going to sit by on this.
-Dan
The votes weren't there in the 108th. No way the Maine gals and Chafee would have gone along with that. Even with Zell, we were still at least 1 vote short.
Wrong wrong wrong,
This is not long term, this is a single cross road.
We either win or lose NOW. Nuke It.
The Judicial is the last breath of the Democrats.
Frist just gave away the next century... ++++++
"Frist just wrote off the slim hope he had of being on the national ticket in '08. What a putz."
That wopuld be my read. Some were given ones of brass, others have to make do with Twinkie dough.
"Bush is NOT going to put up with another four years of this crap"
Exactly!!
On the other hand, if Bush names a prominent conservative minority, the media will make that the issue and justify the Democrat obstruction, which would embolden them. That is why Bush's choice has to be very carefully planned to not give the media the ammunition.
One thing to consider: When Thurgood Marshall resigned, there were outcries to replace the "Black" seat on the bench. When Rehnquist resigns, will their be similar leeway to preserve a "conservative" seat? If we're going to be in the business of reserving seats on the bench, Bush should be able to claim the first "Hispanic" seat and make the Democrats fight against it, as long as we can cast that fight as an anti-minority fight and not a "he supported torture" or some such fight.
-PJ
I think I recall North Korea signing a piece of paper pledging never to build nuclear weapons.
-Dan
I think the gist of his post was to use the heightened publicity of a Supreme Court fight against the Democrats. In a bit of political Judo, make them filibuster a Hispanic pick, or an African-American pick, while the whole country watches. Then, if polls show that the public supports Bush, then talk about the nuclear option.
-PJ
Post of the week, way to go!
The only option GWB would have is to go nucular himself and veto every appropriations bill until the Senate votes on his nominees. He might reason that he doesn't have to run again, but Congress does. Reagan, as much as I loved him as President, didn't have the stones to do this. I'm not sure GWB would either. We simply aren't as irresponsible as the 'Rats are.
Sorry .. I don't agree with you. The President (as a Republican) is head of the party - Frist takes his direction from the President on what issues are important - that's how the President get's his agenda put forward in the senate.
Frist cannot just arbitrarily do what the heck he wants. That is not how it works.
And .. Frist does not take his direction from the 55 - the 55 take their direction from Frist - because he's the MAJORITY LEADER.
Again, this is nothing. The headline is bogus. But Freeper crybabies do so love to cry, so mark this down as another successfully pathetic thread.
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.