Posted on 04/12/2005 8:55:19 PM PDT by Valin
ASHINGTON, April 12 - As the fight over the federal judiciary spread across Capitol Hill, Senate Republicans said Tuesday that they might quicken their push to prevent Democratic filibusters of judicial nominees.
Senior lawmakers and party officials said that while Republican leaders had been expected to put off any confrontation over Senate rules until next month at the earliest, they might now force a confrontation within the next two weeks.
"It's possible," though "that does not mean it will happen," said Bob Stevenson, a spokesman for the majority leader, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee.
Mr. Frist is under increasing pressure from some conservative Republicans to move ahead with a floor fight to change the rules so that filibusters, which require 60 votes to be cut off, could not be mounted against judicial nominations. It is unclear whether he has the votes to adopt the change, however, even by a bare majority.
Among those pushing for the change is Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, No. 3 in the Republican leadership.
"I am concerned that a partisan minority of Democrats are threatening to shut down the Senate if Republicans act to restore Senate tradition for simple majority votes" on nominations to the bench, Mr. Santorum said. "Their rhetoric is out of control and counterproductive."
Democrats responded by saying it was Republicans, with their efforts to curb the filibuster and with their escalating attacks on the judiciary, who were going too far.
"The Republican abuse of power," Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York said, "has been pushed by extremists who want to punish an independent judiciary and simultaneously obliterate checks and balances, effectively making the U.S. Senate a rubber stamp for judicial nominees."
Democrats circulated an interview in which Bob Dole, a former Senate majority leader, told National Public Radio that his fellow Republicans ought to be "very careful."
"You want to think down the road," Mr. Dole said. "The Senate's going to change. It's not always going to be Republican."
In the House, where Republicans have been simmering over federal courts' refusal to intercede in the Terri Schiavo case, one member directly confronted Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on Tuesday about the Supreme Court's practice of acknowledging foreign legal developments, an approach that has drawn the ire of conservatives.
At a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing on the court's spending request, Representative Todd Tiahrt, Republican of Kansas, veered from the budget issues to press Justice Kennedy.
"Lately we've had rulings that seem to go beyond the rule of law" and that reflect "outside influence," the congressman told the justice. He pointed to a Supreme Court decision last month barring the execution of those who were juveniles when they committed their crimes. That decision, which was written by Justice Kennedy and which cited international treaties and practices abroad, appeared to reflect "pressure put on by the United Nations and other agencies," Mr. Tiahrt said.
Mr. Tiarht said the court was "not interpreting the Constitution and laws that govern America anymore," and added that his views were shared by people "across the United States."
Justice Kennedy, appearing unruffled, replied mildly that disagreements over the meaning of the Constitution were "a very important part of democratic dialogue." He added, "This give and take is very healthy."
As the author of the decision on executions in juvenile crime, as well as a decision two years ago that invalidated criminal sodomy laws, Justice Kennedy has been a target of sustained attack, with some conservatives calling for his impeachment. But he and the court were defended Tuesday by Democrats and Republicans alike.
Representative Steven R. Rothman, Democrat of New Jersey, said he was surprised to see Republicans criticizing the court when seven of its nine members were nominated by Republican presidents. (Justice Kennedy himself was nominated by Ronald Reagan.) And criticism of Justice Kennedy was belittled by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania.
"I read about people wanting to impeach Justice Kennedy for decisions that he has handed down," Mr. Specter told reporters. "You'll pardon me for mentioning it, but the only reason I mention it is because it's not worth mentioning."
Both Mr. Specter and Mr. Frist said the tone of the Senate fight over judicial nominations and the intense lobbying by outside groups interested in the issue were complicating their efforts to strike a compromise with Democrats and avoid a showdown.
"We need to lower the rhetoric," Mr. Frist said. "For the life of me, I can't understand how we benefit moving America forward and we have the other side of the aisle talking about shutting down government."
But the majority leader also said Republicans were going to step up their own efforts, in the belief that opponents of the rules change were winning the public relations war.
"I do feel that we need to do a better job at this juncture in getting information out," he said. "While I'm sitting here trying to work across the aisle, our voice is being lost."
Linda Greenhouse contributed reporting for this article.
that is exactly what I have done..any Republican entity asking for donations have come up dry here..and I have stated why very plainly....
Right on, you Big Government crapweasel! I'm voting Libertarian - Republicans seem to want to steal and waste even more of our money.
OldBobDole . . . . . LOSER!
Roger that!
THEY brought down the Kerry/Edwards campaign --- SINGLE HANDED..
NOTHING the RNC came up with, was nearly as effective..
I'm still waiting for Kerry the lying traitorous sonuvabitch to sign his SF-180....
Semper Fi
Gee, you think? Simply say over and over, as Fred Barnes suggested. AT THE VERY LEAST, THE NOMINEES DESERVE AN UP OR DOWN VOTE. Most people can understand and agree with that.
Ah yes! So the Quicken will chase the Republican Chicken and the Zot will give him a Licken. Got it. :)
Just for conversation, are you stating that Democrats and Republicans are basically the same? That with the tremendous debt, the inability or unwillingness to lead, the cowardice shown on illegal immigration and activist judges, the miniature tax cuts and the 33% of GDP expropriated by the government, the additional 10% of GDP wasted on compliance with the 17,000 page tax code, the smackdown humbly accepted by the Congress by a state judge, etc, that both republicans and democrats are basically on the same team--one that is aligned against conservative, God-fearing, America loving, English-only, hard-working, tax-hating, apple pie and Pittsburgh Steeler fan Americans?
By the way--Atlas Shrugged ought to be required reading in every high school. Make them memorize the forty page radio address Galt gives toward the end.
The whole thing about Republicans not being able to use the filibuster on Judicial nominees when the Democrats regain control is ridiculous - filibusters are unprecedented!
It our Senate. I'd kinda like to get working on SS reform, taxcuts, immigration reform, and abortion restrictions.
If I was a rat I'd be all for the Republicans giving me an excuse and cover for stopping Republican legislation cold.
Lost in space
Clearly you disagree, yet the vagueness of your reply reveal no thought as to why. Would you care to elaborate your opinion?
It sounds like you thought Clinton and the rat congress wasn't so different from today's political situation. I remember things like gun restrictions, restrictions on abortion protesters, tax increases, Somalia, Waco, and bombing aspirin factories. I remember a bunch of scandals and semen stains on the White House carpet.
I see a big difference between Barney Frank and Steve Chabot.
"Their rhetoric is out of control and counterproductive."
Only if republicans show some backbone and will power, if
not it's called a "winning strategy".
"While I'm sitting here trying to work across the aisle, our voice is being lost."
No, MISTER Frist, it's being lost because you're are trying to "work across the aisle"!
Good memory. Things like Campaign Finance Reform stick out to me. I agree there is a difference of degree between Republican and Democrat--but the degree isn't that significant contrasted to the degree of difference between what most Republican voters want and what they get. The popular phrase around here is "stones." Republicans have a majority and a mandate, just not stones. Maybe they'd be better playing defense.
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.