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."

[MikefromOhio]

and what good does it do to assasinate them?


thats just stupid man. Either work within the system, get someone elected from where you are that reflects your views and do it that way or get out.

I dont see where popping those that disagree with you is in the Constitution.....

[Mark in the Old South]

Of course he won't, that'll blow their cover.

[VRWCisme]

When the GOP has been the minority, has there ever been a concerted effort at holding up judicial nominees from even getting a vote? I know that there have been efforts to defeat someone in vote, but how many dem nominees were filibustered for extended periods and never given a vote?

[daybreakcoming]

***I suspect this means Frist didn't have the votes - which means he lost 5+ votes from Republicans.***



I suspect you may be correct. However, IMO he should have made the attempt so that we may know just where the individual Republicans stand.

[ARCADIA]

We would do better to replace the entire reeking congress with 535 randomly selected citizens.

[MikefromOhio]

To keep and bear arms...not to kill Senators because they disagree with you....

I think you need some decaf and maybe some help....

[Lancey Howard]

Can the rules be changed at any time? I mean, if the scumbag Democrats start the filibuster thing again, can the Republicans say, "Har! So much for reaching across the aisle in the spirit of bipartisanship. Now let's shove it down their stinking throats like we should have done at the beginning", and then change the rule immediately?

[avg_freeper]

You win the "most likely to be visited by an SS agent" award. The prize? Thoroughly checked body cavities.

[e5man_r_u?]

Calm down folks. This is abviously a sophisticated Karl Rovian plan to get the Democrats to filibuster another group of qualified candidates. That way the filibustering Dims will lose their seats in 2006.

It is that, right? A brilliant ploy not a spineless cave-in?
Lie to me if you have to!
It is all a Karl Rovesque scheme! It is! It is!

Oh OK, they caved again!

[snopercod]

What a sitzpinkler Frist is.

[PeterPhilly]

"There's a bunch of political wrangling going on. They saw this as effective with getting Daschle out of office, and they're hoping that they can get what they want anyway. And if the Dems block again, to make it a National election issue in the next set of campaigns. It's not a bad strategy, it's just a frustrating one if you're not patient."

Oh good....we don't actually want to confirm judges....we just want something we can use in fundraising letters. I have proposed this before(in conjunction with the Republicans refusal to deny Arlen Specter the Judiciary chairmanship)and it works just as well now. Every time you get a Republican fundraising letter, just return it with a short message stating that no funds will be forthcoming until they actually start to enact the policies they ran on. If you hit them in the pocketbook, maybe they'll listen. They take us for granted because they assume we have nowhere else to go. We could probably get them 65 Republicans in the Senate and they'd still find ways not to act like the majority party.

[Soul Seeker]

I say only this...

I will not tolerate another session of filibusters. I am not going to wait until there is a 67 seat majority (if that is even possible) to have the law adherred to. I expect Bush's nominations to be allowed a vote. If that doesn't happen, there will be consequences.

I have patience, but it is not eternal. The GOP Senators are on probation.

[Harvuskong]

I think that if he has lost 5 and only 5 votes, it could still be done with Cheney's yes vote to break the tie.

[PsyOp]

The French/Frist Gambit: Surrender, collaborate, then claim victory.

I'm so glad I said no last night when the Republican telemarketers called me once again for another donation.

My new slogan is "No Money For RINO's!"

The party has four years to convince me not become an Independent or Libertarian.

[snopercod]

I got my call from the RNC last night, and told them to stick it.

[dljordan]

I'm sure someone will be along to explain how this is top-level strategery and to lambast the nay-sayers for being infidels.

[RinaseaofDs]

Which means he should have made the RINO's go on the record for it and take their chances at re-election time.

I have to say, Hatch delivered and Frist fumbled. If he was thinking about an 08 run for President, that's out.

In my opinion, Senators shouldn't even try running for President anyway. They cheat to win (Kennedy) and carry with them poor work habits from the days they spent laying about in relative anonymity.

[MissouriConservative]

What happened to all the "tough" talk? Was Frist hoping to "scare" the democrats with his words only? They called his bluff and he caved like a wimp. Call for "cooperation" with democrats is like a sheep calling for "cooperation" with a pack of wolves.

When will Republicans grow a pair and start acting like they run the place instead of letting a minority run over them like a steam roller?