Posted on 04/29/2005 6:58:07 AM PDT by cogitator
OK, so I'm thinking yesterday (dangerous thing to do), and I say to myself, if I was Harry Reid, what could I do to move this debate off of Square One? What could I do to try to swing more public sentiment my way? How could I put myself in a better bargaining position?
So I thought of this. Offer a modified nuclear option to the Republicans: They can close debate on judicial nominations with a cloture vote of only 55 votes (down from the current 60).
I.e., if the GOP can get every Senator claiming to be a Republican to vote for cloture, they get the nominations on the floor for an up-and-down vote.
Get this: there is no downside for the Democrats with this offer. From the view of the public, it's an easy-to-comprehend compromise -- they're giving up five votes for cloture. They're telling the Republicans that all they have to do is to get the members of their own party to vote for the nominated judges.
What this does (obviously), if 'twere accepted, is put a massive amount of pressure on the moderate RINOs: Snowe, Collins, Chafee, Hagel? Specter?. If they vote for cloture, they'll get pilloried by the moderate Democrats in their states, possibly leading to an unseating when they're up next (and maybe a path back to a Democratic majority, Harry thinks). If they vote against cloture, then the Democrats get what they wanted all along, a continued block on the contentious judges. If the GOP doesn't accept the offer, they look unreasonable in the face of such a magnanimous forfeiture by the Democrats.
And it still preserves the minority's "right" to filibuster.
Comments?
Bad idea.
There shoud be NO recognition of an ultra-constitutional parlimentary "trick" to halt judicial nominations.
The Constitution provides for a simple majority, 51 votes, to confirm a justice. THAT should be what is adhered to.
Of course it is. But this would be a public relations trick.
My guess is that if these nominees acutally come up for a vote on the senate floor quite a few DemocRATS will vote to confirm. That's why they want to maintain a 60 vote cloture rule. It keeps DemocRATS from marginal seats from having to explicitly go on record against conservative nominees or alienating activists and donors by voting for Republican nominees. I really think there should be a constitutional amendment that would put a time limit on the Senate to act on judicial nominations. If after one year or so, the Senate has not voted on the nomination, the nominee would take the position permanently.
Brilliantly Political Move - Democrats deception at its best
Abhorrent constitutionally - This is an advise and consent matter, all you need is 51 votes for confirmation
With my idea the Dems are still protected, because they're voting to protect the right of judicial filibuster, not voting against any individuals.
I wonder. What if 51 or more senators wrote letters to the White House stating their support for a judicial candidate? Nowhere in the Constitution does it say there has to be a floor vote. It only say the President has to have the advice and consent of the Senate. If an absolute majority of the Sentate writes letters to the President supporting the confirmation of a nominee, is that not enough to satisfy the requirements of "advice and consent".
and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for,
Absolutely correct. They don't have to get their hands dirty actually voting for or against a particular nominee.
Read post #7. Where does the Constitution require a floor vote?
"The Constitution provides for a simple majority, 51 votes, to confirm a justice. THAT should be what is adhered to."
Actually, that isn't necessarily true. The Constitutions states that the senate gives "advice and consent". It does NOT say they vote. SO, some senators, (and I would argue that a majority would not be necessary) could merely state verbally or in writing that they consent to bringing the candidate in. I think a case could be made that if only one Senator consented, a President could go ahead with the appointment.
I would have to pop a serious tub of popcorn to enjoy the circus that would ensue!!
>>And it still preserves the minority's "right" to filibuster.<<
Unless I have completely misunderstood this issue, no one is threatening to end the right to filibuster. What the Republicans are attempting to end is the 40-year-old "Gentlemen's filibuster", in which you don't actually have to PERFORM the filibuster (thereby avoiding any negative consquences of so doing), but can simply DECLARE that you're filibustering and thereby prevent any bill or nominee from getting out of committee and to the Senate floor. All other business proceeds as usual. This enables the Democrat minority to obstruct the President without having to come out into the open with a real filibuster.
Good point.
However, IIRC, there was a Supreme Court case that established that a "vote" was necessary.
I'll see if I can find it.
If it's just a Supreme Court decision, a future Supreme Court could reverse it.
I use this type of arguement to question where the number 60 came from. (I know, senators made a rule one day, when they decided that 67 was too high a barrier.) But now you propose 55, (or the number of the majority party.) But when the majority increases to 56 and you have a rule based on 55 are you then going to increase the number?
If the number is changed in every session then the number is certainly spurrious and points to the need by stalwart party members to "turn" one member of the opposite party. This is what has been done to the "RINOs" in the congress today. They run on a set of principles and then vote the other way.
The real number of votes needed to force a vote should be 51, as it certainly will be one day if this obstruction continues.
WHAT IS IT ABOUT UN-CONSTITUTIONAL AND ILLEGAL THAT PEOPLE DON'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND ANYMORE.
REQUIRING MORE THAN 51 VOTES FOR A "JUDICIAL NOMINEE" IS "UN-CONSTITUTIONAL" - PERIOD!
IS ANYBODY GETTING IT YET ..?????????
too good?
Here's the bottom line: filibustering judges is a great way to get the laws you illegally got on the books, via judges, to stay on the books, via judges.
If you go down this road, and a single rino does indeed vote w/ the democrats as you know they will, then the democrats win, b/c we will be getting USSC nominees this year.
So. bottom line, why would frist want to enshrine illegal precedent? Just to flush out rinos? that would make frist a rino...
All that doesn't even address the constitutional issues.
But the worst reason is this: such a move would utter FANTASTICALLY EMBOLDEN democrats...; why on earth would we want to give them any hope whatsoever. Such a move would be proof, to them, that they are morally in the right ...
too good ....? For democrats, it indeed is...
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.