Frist Caves on Filibuster Rule Change for Judicial Nominees

Human Events Online ^ | January 4, 2005 | Robert Bluey

[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."

[TomGuy]

with 55 Republican senators, that Frist simply doesn't have the votes.

If Frist can't muster a majority of votes with 55, he doesn't need to be in the leadership position. Dems never had a problem like that. Heck, they are doing more with 41 Senators than the Pubs are doing with 59.

That was the excuse for Frist last session -- he didn't have the votes. Well, what in the H does it take for the Republicans to get the votes? 51? No. 55? Apparently not. Dems never have a problem as the ruling majority. Maybe the Pubs should just resign and turn the Senator over the Dems.

Brings to mind a joke about how many Dems does it take to screw in a lightbulb; how many Republicans does it take to have a majority in the Senate? No one seems to know. Because 51 wasn't enough last session, and apparently, 55 still isn't enough this session.

[TheBattman]

Somebody have some dirt on Frist? I am surprised that he caved on this, as he has proposed the same action himself .... OK, maybe I'm not so surprised.

What the heck is the use of a large majority in the Senate if we can't use it?

[Digger]

NOW Are the people finally going to understand how this "Two-Party Cartel" works. There will be NO true conservative Supreme Court when GW leaves - Guaranteed - period - end of story. These dungheaps in Congress are TOTALLY owned & bought by the elites. Peal one layer off & the next scum layer comes to the top. Put 85 (R)s in the Senate & 33 will turn RINO. Guaranteed again. Only when you provide a viable 3rd party will anything ever change.

[Paladin2]

If the Reps are thinking that being nice to "Rats is going to increase their hold on either the House or the Senate in '06, they are quite mistaken.

[You Dirty Rats]

Exactly what is the source of power that makes Frist the puppet of the President, and the Conference the puppet of Frist?

The Congress is an independent branch of government. They told Clinton to pound sand in 1994 when he tried to ram his wife's crappy health care plan through. They didn't even schedule Jimmy Carter's horrible Salt II treaty for a vote in the Senate, because a majority of Senators in his own Party hated the treaty.

The position of Majority Leader HAS no intrinsic power at all. It's not listed in the Constitution, and it has no power to comel votes from Senators. A Majority Leader has to earn and maintan the trust and support of the Conference; otherwise, he gets nothing accomplished.

You seem to have our system of government confused with that of a Fascist State.

[Barlowmaker]

Only when you provide a viable 3rd party will anything ever change

You sitting around waiting for someone to provide you a viable 3rd party Digger?

[rodguy911]

I sure as hell hope it goes that way.

Unfortunately the history has always been that the rats play hardball all the time while we come out sporting whiffle balls.

Hardballs hurt and are effective. Whiffle balls are nothing but lots of plastic with airholes. We need results from legislators who are not afraid of rat/spin by the DMSM.

[You Dirty Rats]

If Frist can't muster a majority of votes with 55, he doesn't need to be in the leadership position.

Was it George Mitchell's fault that there weren't the votes in the Senate to pass Hillarycare? C'mon.

[Flux Capacitor]

----It's not so easy to strongarm Senators, particularly those in Blue States like Maine and Rhode Island (Snowe, Chafee, Collins). Then there's McCain, Specter, Hegel ... we've got a few weak sisters in there.----

I've pretty much written off the New England senators (I'm amazed Chafee didn't switch parties years ago), but since we picked up four seats -- all in red states -- it's certainly possible now to swing enough "mavericks" over to get to 51. I can see Hagel, McCain, and Lott ultimately falling into line, once they've made their indignant media stands over this. MAYBE Specter; he just does whatever the hell he wants to do from day to day but maybe they can catch him on a good day.

-Dan

[chiller]

"I say if they threaten to filibuster, then CALL 'EM ON IT.

As I understand it a real filibuster in which the floor is never yielded ties up all of the Republicans all the time, while only the single Democratic filbusterer must be present. I need help on this, but I think its got to do with being ready to cast a vote.

[TomGuy]

But Bill Frist cannot just wave a magic wand and make the Democrats' filibustering option vanish.

No, he can't now, because HE set precedent last session. If, on the very first filibuster, he would have ruled it out-of-order, the Dems would have whined and complained and the judicial nominations would have ALL gotten floor votes. Frist blew it....last session.

[Barlowmaker]

He didn't have 51 votes to change the rule last session.

[You Dirty Rats]

Everyone here seems to have very short memories. Bob Dole had only 43 votes in 1993, yet he did an amazing job stopping Hillarycare and holding the fort until we took over after the 1994 elections. The Senate just doesn't work like the House. If you can hold onto 41 Senators, it's tough for the majority to do much. That applies regardless of which party is in power. The only difference now is that the 'Rats are doing this with judicial nominees.

[guitarist]

No! It's not a cave. He implies he will vote for the rule change if needed later. Give him a chance.

[You Dirty Rats]

It's not last session, it's the last Congress. Big difference.

[Blessed]

>Alrighty then, I can't wait for my monthly call from the RNC...<

Got mine this morning before I knew this. Told the girl to call back when leadership gets a backbone.

[You Dirty Rats]

I think we have enough Senators now, also. We actually only need 50, with Cheney to cast the tie-breaker.

[Digger]

Bush wanted Frist, now let Bush take care of the idiot. He swapped a wussie for a weenie.

Come On! GW knew exactly what he was doing with this wimp. His "actions have consequences" was another doozy when we see the impeached one standing by him, giving credibility to that felon. RUSH can sit & say "It's all for the office" rather than the individual. Sorry RUSH & GW. This action onlt tells me that there is a polluted conspiracy in Washington.

[You Dirty Rats]

You are exactly right -- we need all of our Senators present for the filibuster; they need exactly one. Good luck convincing the Republican Conference to do THAT.

[rodguy911]

"The media will turn it into a Republican issue if they try and change the rules"

The media is going to spin and try and screw us no matter what happens. I say we play hardball just like the rats do. They area lot like terrorists it's all they understand.

If there is any place in the world that could care less about what the media does it is here on fr.