Posted on 01/16/2005 1:46:52 PM PST by inquest
WASHINGTON — The Senate's Democratic leader said Sunday that Republicans "would rue the day" if they try to make it harder for Democrats to stall judicial nominees who could not get a vote last year. But Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said he hoped a new "optimistic" climate would take hold now that Nevada Sen. Harry Reid is the top Democrat, succeeding the defeated Tom Daschle of South Dakota, whom the GOP labeled an obstructionist.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
We're going to be in the majority. That's the way history is
I see Marx lives.
The Constitution says that the Senate can set it's own rules, and one of those rules states that it takes 60 votes to shut off a debate. And that applies to all debates, not just judicial nominations. Now if the Vice-President wants to rule that the Democrats are in violation of Senate rules then that's one thing. He'll have to cite the Senate rule that they're in violation of. But if the Vice-President wants to shut down the Democrat filibuster on the grounds that it is unconstitutional then that's way beyond his authority to decide.
Sound's like we need to "Pop Smoke" and go for it!
The Constitution does not give the Vice-President the authority to rule on what is Constitutional and what is not.
Bush will never do the bully pulpit thing, nor will Frist do anything worthwhile.
Well you would have to point out which Senate rule prevents judicial appointments from being filibustered. According to Rule XXII, it takes 60 senators to close debate on "any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate." It doesn't exclude judicial nominations.
No, but if the Vice-President rules that filibustering judicial nominations is unconstitutional then you can expect the court to take it up in a heart-beat. He doesn't have that authority.
Screw Harry Reid and the horse he rode in on.
Reid has already made a fool of himself many times over and the Congress hasnt even started.
He sounds more like that nutty fool that was speaking for Saddam than a USSenator , with his silly threats.
The Dems already did in 1975.
A true supermajority is 2/3rds or 67 votes. In 1975 the Dems couldn't get around a determined Republican minority, so they changed the votes required to get around a filibuster to 60 votes, which they had.
Wrong.
As chair of the Senate, he can issue such rulings.
It's pure bluff. As we have said so often, how could the Democrats be any nastier or more obstructive than they already are? They've already pulled out all the stops, to the point where they are damaging themselves. Four years of nasty behavior and partisan vitriol is more than enough.
Me, too. Being nice to 'Rats is like being nice to a snake. It will eventually bite you anyway.
We will lose 4...if we lose 6 without a Dem addition....Ben Nelson maybe, the nuclear option would fail. It should be used as a last resort.
Ditto, GO NUCLEAR EARLY! Take NO PRISONERS!
I agree with you....one thing that the nuclear option will do is educate some of those idiotic liberals. When I explained the constitutional processes concerning this issue to a liberal she just stopped and thought.....something she hadn't done since she registered as a democrat.
Well, the Dems have done the same thing in the past, and to my knowledge, no court heard any case.
The Vice President can rule on questions of order. He cannot rule an action unconstitutional.
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.