Frist Caves on Filibuster Rule Change for Judicial Nominees

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

[rwfromkansas]

"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."

Actually, no, it would not be harder with the nuclear option. Cheney would rule and it would be upheld by a simple majority.

This article is rather sensationalistic. He is choosing to wait on the option until and if it becomes necessary. He isn't saying he won't go down the road in the future if he has to.

But frankly, doing so would shut the Senate down...Bush would not be able to get anything passed, which is why it has to be a last resort.

[TomGuy]

What is really going to be a bloodbath is GWB trying to get his first SCJ nomination through the Senate.

The Dems will make the Bernie Kerik affair look like a Wednesday social......unless GWB nominates the Dems' choice.

Frist, by not stopping the first filibuster by calling it out-of-order last session, has set precedent, now. He has handed the Dems the only real weapon they had, and he even loaded it for them.

[F16Fighter]

Bill Frist: "Our Democratic colleagues have new leadership, and in the spirit of bipartisanship, I want to extend my hand across the aisle."

Hey Bill -- When you stick your bare-@ss out into the aisle, it won't be a reciprocating hand of "bipartisanship" you feel.

[Mr. Keys]

And Frist has been mentioned as a potential candidate in 2008 for pres. What a joke !!! I don't think there's a pair of gonads in all the Repub Senators combined.

[Lancey Howard]

"....is there really any doubt that the party that invented "Borking" and has beaten the process down to the disgraceful low-point that we now have would "go nuclear" if the shoes were on the other feet? Please.... OF COURSE they would."

GO NUCLEAR! (Response to NRO Editorial)

[Radix]

He may not have the votes, but they still should be compelled to go on record.

It looks like business as usual in the new majority Senate.

What a disgrace!

[mystery-ak]

Maybe if enough of us do that, they will get the message...nothing else seems to work.

[CFC__VRWC]

"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."

According to Rush, they're already planning to disrupt Alberto Gonzalez' AG nomination by showing the Abu Ghraib prison photos during the hearings. Sounds like Frist is already being left with a bloody stump.

[JRandomFreeper]

I want to extend my hand across the aisle...

...to grab those b@rstids by the throat...

/john

[VMI70]

"He is a paragon of virture in a swamp of despair."

"Paragon of virture [sic]" and "politician" are mutually exclusive terms. On a comparative basis he may be better than most, but that's sort of damning with faint praise, isn't it?

[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

Welcome aboard. Happy FReepin'

[Qwinn]

I have no particular desire to defend Frist, but I think that this article is twisting his words.

Here's the full text of what he said:

"Our first responsibility above all else is to do our constitutional duty. Nothing should come before it. Nothing should stand between it. Not party, not ideology, and certainly not politics. And yet in the last Congress, I believe the Senate failed to perform in an essential constitutional duty. It failed to offer advice and consent to the president by filibustering ten judicial nominees and threatening to filibuster another six.

"These filibusters were unprecedented. Never in the history of the Senate has a minority filibustered a judicial nominee that had clear majority support. This was an abrupt and an unfortunate break in more than 200 years of Senate tradition, of Senate history. This tradition must be restored, not merely because we honor the traditions of the Senate, but because this tradition reflects the proper role for this body, the Senate, as designed by our Framers in the constitutional arrangement.

"Next month we'll have the opportunity to restore Senate tradition. I'll bring one of the president's very capable and qualified judicial nominees to the floor. We can debate that nomination. We can vote to support it or to oppose it. And we must offer the president advice and consent by giving this and future judicial nominees who are brought to the floor up-or-down votes.

"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. But at this moment, I do not choose that path. My Democratic colleagues have new leadership, and in the spirit of bipartisanship, I want to extend my hand across the aisle. I have a sincere hope that we can move forward past difficulties, beyond the past difficulties we saw in the last Congress, and look forward to a future of cooperation. I seek cooperation not confrontation. Cooperation does not require support for the nominees. Cooperation simply means voting judicial nominees brought to the floor up or down.

"So let me say this: if my Democratic colleagues exercise self-restraint and don't filibuster judicial nominees, Senate traditions will be restored. It will then be unnecessary to change Senate procedures. Self-restraint on the use of the filibuster for nominations, the very same self-restraint that Senate minorities exercised for more than two centuries will alleviate the need for any action.

"But if my Democratic colleagues continue to filibuster judicial nominees, the Senate will face this choice. Fail to do its constitutional duty or reform itself and restore its traditions and do what the Framers intended. Right now we cannot be certain judicial filibusters will cease, so I reserve the right to propose changes to Senate Rule 22 and do not acquiesce in the carrying over all the Rules from the last Congress.

"As a public servant who has twice taken an oath to support the Constitution, I cannot stand idly by, nor should any of us, if the Senate fails to do its constitutional duty. We as United States Senators have our constitutional duty to offer the president advice and consent."

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. He's basically saying "We're fully prepared to change the rules, don't force us to do it". It -would- be better if the rules could be left as they are if the Dems would just behave themselves. If they don't, then Frist is basically saying his immediate reaction will be to call for a vote to change the rules. It's a new Congress with new leadership. Why should we take the heat for changing the rules before even giving this Congress a chance to not be the jerks the last Congress was? Let -them- fact the heat for forcing the issue.

Qwinn

[rwfromkansas]

There is no way he lost more than that.

And that still would be enough to win with Cheney's vote.

That is not the reason he is not pursuing it at this time.

[curlewbird]

"I want to extend my hand across the aisle"


Better extend that hand palm down, that way they can't fill it up with crap!!

[Cuttnhorse]

Interesting take, I hope you are right, er, correct.

[PeterPhilly]

Considering the Bush agenda (the education bill, the Medicare/prescription drug entitlement, the "guest worker"/amnesty program) that might not be such a bad thing!

[KarlInOhio]

Frist Caves on ...

Can JimR add a button to type this automatically? I have a sick feeling this phrase will be used a lot in the next four years.

[Flux Capacitor]

Folks, before we lay this all at Frist's feet (and of course, we already are), remember that the rule change, under a best-case scenario (getting Senate President Cheney to rule the filibusters unconstitutional) requires a 51-vote majority -- and it could very well be, even with 55 Republican senators, that Frist simply doesn't have the votes.

There are EASILY enough "independent"-minded RINOs currently infecting the Senate to deny the Republicans even the simple majority they need here. Besides even the five likely suspects I mentioned, we've got pains-in-the-asses like Lott, Hagel, and who knows who many more.

Hopefully, the Republican leadership will be able to lean hard enough on enough of these jerks to get to 51. 'Cause I am willing to bet you that the problem lies here, and not with Frist.

-Dan

[cynicom]

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

[NormsRevenge]

FRist to Fight..

FRist to tuck and run.. ;-)

No surprise here, FRankly.