Posted on 05/17/2005 7:11:09 AM PDT by CWW
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - On the eve of a high-stakes showdown, a key lawmaker said on Tuesday it was unclear if a group of bipartisan U.S. senators could strike a deal on President Bush's contested judicial nominees.
"It's hard to say. There's a lot of cross-pressures. There's a lot of activity on both extremes of the political spectrum," Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, told CNN. "We'll know more today."
The Senate is to begin what's expected to be several days of debate on Wednesday on two of the seven appeals court candidates blocked by Democrats during the last Congress and then renominated by Bush after he won re-election in November.
Republicans have vowed that if Democrats again stop the nominees with procedural hurdles known as filibusters, they will move to ban such tactics on appeals court as well as U.S. Supreme Court nominees.
Republican leaders say they will have the 51 votes needed in the 100-member Senate to abolish such filibusters. But Democrats argue it is too close to call.
Efforts to find common ground persisted despite a breakdown in talks on Monday between Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat.
McCain and Sen. Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat, are leading an effort to attract a half dozen largely moderate senators from each party to a last ditch-compromise.
Their proposal would clear the way for votes on some of Bush's stalled judicial nominees while blocking others.
Under the proposal, Republicans would promise not to eliminate judicial filibusters through the end of next year, and Democrats would vow not to use such tactics against any circuit court or Supreme Court nominee except in "extreme circumstances."
Republicans hold 55 of 100 Senate seats. A simple majority is needed to confirm a nominee, but 60 votes are required to end a filibuster.
The aim of Nelson and McCain has been to provide six Democratic votes to clear the way for confirmation votes on some of the disputed nominees and six Republican votes to preserve the judicial filibuster. Nelson was confident he had enough Democrats on board, but was still working to attract a total of six Republicans, an aide said.
Talks between Frist and Reid ended following months of futile efforts to find common ground.
"The negotiations are over," Reid said. "I've tried to compromise (but) they want all or nothing, and I can't do that."
Frist said in a statement, "Republicans believe in the regular order of fair up and down votes and letting the Senate decide yes or no on judicial confirmations free from procedural gimmicks like the filibuster."
What I want to hear is that McMeMeMe admits he doesn't have the votes to win re-election.
Dan
Well, gee darn, you're sposta know dees tings.
ping!
I scanned the net and found this article one of the most detailed about the history and constitutional angles:
http://66.216.126.164/comment/comment-eastman051503.asp
Heading to work - have a good one.
Or a couple of Dems who live in the Red states and are soon up for re-election.
LIEBERMAN PRESS CONFERENCE NOW on the fact that Frist/Reid talks have failed. Showdown is on according to Lieberman.
Good. I was wonderinh about you for a momint...
Come on, now. I was hoping that we could stay unified at least for this week. But, inevitably, we are going to hear some FReepers bash every Republican while giving the Democrats a pass.
Bayh?
I merely obsoive McCain and Matthews' body language and mutual goo-goo eyes as they hold hands during their so-called CNN "interviews" (that was the question, right? :-D).
Well, that's encouraginh!!
http://66.216.126.164/comment/comment-eastman051503.asp
The Senate website has a copy of the origial Senate Rules, in place from 1789 to 1806. Hmmm. Rules VIII & IX add up to "no possibility of delay by a minority."
"Obsoive" -- OMG, tell me you don't really talk like that! :)
Does this mean Lieberman will tow the party line on the filibuster? Very disappointing if true.....
It's always about McQueeg, isn't it.
:^)
Yep, Rootin' Tootin' Raspberry, as a matter o' fact!
Encouraging, but I'll believe the "noo-you-ler option" when I see it with me own two eyes, and the GOP actually executes "Plan "A" of their judicial plan TO-A-TEE.
This Party has broken my heart too many times.
This guy is either a total moron or a complete self-serving panderer.
The issue here is whether or not the Constitution calls for a clear up or down vote on Presidential juridical appointees. Clearly it does as it states that a simple majority of Sentors will be necessary to confirm.
What is so difficult about that to understand?
Either the Constitution means what it says or it doesn't. There is no issue here upon which to compromise unless McCain thinks the minority party should get equla rights to select judicial appointees along with the majority party, which would truely be a novel idea.
How on earth can ANYONE take this guy seriously anymore? How on earth can he continue to get re-elected? Are they all brain dead in Arizona??
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.