Posted on 05/17/2005 6:29:50 PM PDT by wagglebee
In the Senate this week, what promises to be a contentious culmination to what Republican Senator Trent Lott originally coined the "nuclear option" will almost certainly take place. Majority Leader Bill Frist will call for a vote on Texas Nominee Priscilla Owens, first nominated by President Bush to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in May 2001. At that point, the Senate chamber will have gone to what might be described as DefCon 1.
The term "DefCon," short for Defense Condition, is the chief operating procedure of NORAD, or North American Air Defense, located in the Cheyenne Mountains of Colorado. Little known until MGM's thriller "War Games" in 1983, DefCon has five strict protocols – from five, meaning "at peace," to one, meaning the nation is "at war."
With the GOP stopping Senate Democrats from filibustering seven federal appeals court nominees, coupled with United Nations nominee John Bolton heading for a possible filibuster of his own, it will be political warfare not seen in the Senate chamber since the combative days of 1964. Then, the Senate set out upon a 57-day marathon to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964, finally culminating with Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, who railed for some 14 hours against fundamental rights for blacks.
(www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Civil_Rights_Filibuster_Ended.htm)
What of all the proposed deals and cloakroom accords that were winding their way around Capitol Hill? Various senators are still trying to hammer out a last-minute deal, but it may be too little, too late.
And so, let it be. If the fundamental issue here is an up-or-down vote for a sitting president's judicial nominees which have been held back by Senate Democrats for four years now – raising the political warfare level to DefCon 1 is not only appropriate but also a necessary and practical option.
There is no precedent for the Democratic obstructionism that has plagued Bush since his inauguration in 2001. The closest that comes to mind – and what Democrats continually point to – is the filibuster against Abe Fortas in 1968, whom President Lyndon Johnson attempted to appoint as the chief justice of the Supreme Court.
The differences here are many. Johnson was a lame-duck president, and Fortas was already elevated to the Supreme Court in 1965. Along with the 24 Republicans, 19 Democrats voted against ending the filibuster against Fortas, a truly bipartisan effort. Proven to be ethically challenged as well, Fortas would not have had the votes to pass muster on the Senate floor, so he soon withdrew his nomination.
(www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/justices/fortas.htm)
For Republicans, the risk lies in not exercising the so-called "nuclear option." As stated by National Review editor Rich Lowry, Senator Bill Frist should "take away their [Democrats'] ability to mount unprecedented judicial filibusters through the so-called nuclear option, then sleep the sleep of an utterly justified defender of Senate tradition."
(www.townhall.com/columnists/richlowry/rl20050513.shtml)
Much has been made by the mainstream media over the GOP exercising its right to restore the intended "advice and consent" role of the Senate. But little has been said about the damage that will occur among the Republican Party faithful if the 55 senators who have an obligation to the voters and the president do not act.
Republicans know that the last bastion of power for Democrats lies within the courts. Unable to enact legislation through the Democratic process of elected representation, Democrats instead rely on the courts to essentially decree their socially liberal policies.
That is why Senate and House Democrats, along with the mainstream media, look upon the "nuclear option" as – in political terms – a true war to be fought for what will be decades of ideology, and a judicial bullpen for future Supreme Court nominees.
The courts are all that the modern-day Democratic Party has any type of influence on, and everybody, from the New York Times editorial room to the campus of UC Berkeley, knows that if Democrats lose this fight, they lose generationally as well.
A president's high-court appointments often outlive him and can become his most enduring legacy. Through court rulings, judges keep alive a president's ideology and often frustrate the opposition party. It is what Republicans see today, as decades of liberal appointments have turned America's courts into halls of judicial activism.
President Bush has nominated what he terms as "traditionalist" jurists to the bench. Democrats respond by calling them "radicals" and seek to keep their power centered among the courts.
It is time to go "nuclear" in the Senate and rein in Democratic obstructionism. As of today, Republicans stand at DefCon 2. Very soon, another somewhat nostalgic barometer of war, the "Doomsday Clock," will strike 12:00 midnight, signifying the onset of the nuclear option and the protocol of DefCon 1.
To the Republican rank and file, DefCon 1 cannot happen soon enough.
It's really too bad that there isn't any old video footage of Byrd's racist diatribe, it would make for some incredible commercials.
Is tomorrow the day?...should I head for my bunker?....
I keep looking for that blue glow to appear above the
northeastern horizon, it will mean the dawn of a new day!
"Then, the Senate set out upon a 57-day marathon to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964, finally culminating with Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, who railed for some 14 hours against fundamental rights for blacks."
I suspect there is a way to end this mess without resorting to 'Global Thermonuclear War'. I wonder what would happen if the republicans forced the democrats to actually 'filibuster' like in the days of yore. I mean, make the dems take to the floor of the senate and talk continuously. If they stop talking, they've broken the filibuster. Yes, if the dems want to filibuster, then really make them filibuster and not this fake phony filibuster where they only threaten to talk forever.
The 'Rats have already changed the rules (back in the 1970s IIRC) that makes it possible to filibuster by not giving cloture (the formal process of allowing a vote to occur) without actually having to do it. That's why this isn't as extreme as the left wants everyone to think, all the GOP is going to do is revise rules that the 'Rats (under the leadership of Klansman Byrd) implemented a quarter century ago.
Majority Leader Bill Frist will call for a vote on Texas Nominee Priscilla Owens, first nominated by President Bush to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in May 2001.
The Republicans would have to maintain at least 51 Senators on the floor at all times to maintain a quorum, the Democrats could have but a single member on the floor.
Physical exhaustion would do in the Republicans while a single Democrat (who could yield to another) could maintain the filibuster. I don't believe that the Republicans could get enough RINOs to even populate the floor of the Senate if they are going to vote against the 'constitutional' option...
dvwjr
I hope I'm wrong but it just doesn't seem like the Nuclear Option will happen. This whole thing has been stop n go for so long. I wonder if the dems will cave and let these judges have an up or down vote so they can save their fillibustering tactics for the supreme court judges....
Will the rubber meet the road freepers want to know.
A lot depends on us. I called, as a constituent (I am) one of my Senators, Arlen Specter. I told his office "in the words of Margaret Thatcher, don't go all wobbly on us". UP OR DOWN VOTE.
I personally believe behind closed doors the Dems are trying to work out a compromise with the GOP leadership so not to lose face.
That's where I think we will be suckered.........................................again.
We will be pushed into using it and lose because of some scum sucking RINO who will pull a fast one.
Seriously, if the dems can get all their ducks in a row we should be able to get our RINOs, even John McRino in line too.
Then the Demo rats will really be in control and I bet Maine loses its bases and Groton closes in CT.
Frist will not be setting precedent.
Byrd (D-WVa) did it 4 times since 1979.
If the (D)s follow through with their Nuclear Reaction, THAT will set a very bad precedent, and Frist will have to resort to the constitutional Bryd option repeatedly to move anything though the Senate.
Well, I still have time then...sigh!
There should be film coverage of the '64 filibuster. I vaguely remember them, and I remember the public being disgusted. All this noble talk of protecting the rights of the minority goes up in smoke when they start bringing in the cots so somebody can read the phone book.
I sincerely hope that our side manages to develop a spine over this issue and won't surrender it to the RINOs like they did with the Bolton nomination. Keep those lauch codes ready, guys.
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.