Wont happen, there will be a compromise that keeps the filibusters in place. And the Minority Dems will win again..
I have given Frist a LOT of leeway, but the simple fact is he's a wimp. I'm not turning on him, I think he's a good guy, but...he's a wimp.
Since the Post began with a lie there was no point in reading further.
After Frist's performance of late, I'm not holding out much hope. Frist will cave in and that, as they say, will be that.
Frist like Lott before him has no balls, Frist is a wimp and couldn't lead the Sun out of the ocean in the morning.
This girlie man wants to be president? Heaven help us.
Didn't read the entire article, but it fits with the statements made recently by Frist.
There will be *NO* call for cloture, also known as Rule XXII. That's how to get around the 60 vote supermajority. In it's place is the device known as unanimous consent.
If the public perceives that a SINGLE Senator, or small bloc of Senators is holding up a nominee, the public will be pissed. Without a cloture vote to mass behind, the DEMs will have to fabricate cover for their action from whole cloth.
The DEMs decry majority rule, but they are aiming to replace it with minority rule, and that just won't fly.
This is the step that I speculate will NOT happen. Cloture was brought up by the GOP, for judicial nominees, about 20 times in the last Congress. It never worked.
I see using Rule XXII, cloture, as an ADMISSION of sorts, that the 60 vote supermajority is not inappropriate. Frist could have tackled Rule XXII at the start of the Congress, but all he did was say that he was not acquiescing to it. He did not seek unanimous consent to preserve the issue, as was done on January 3, 1957 to set-up a later head-on debate of Rule XXII itself. The pertinent material is at the second column of S14, linked below.
Page S13 of Senate Record
Page S14 of Senate Record
The following HIGHLY RECOMMENDED article has a summary of several past attempts to impose a simple majority process. Interesting in that it provides historical perspective, the "nuclear option" is nothing new. Neither is moving the vote on a simple majority, which was the written rule of the Senate from 1789 until 1806. Whatever "tradition" filibuster has, even for legislative matters, is not 200 years old. 140 years old, maybe.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Gold_Gupta_JLPP_article.pdf
And here are some more links, for the serious student.
RS20801 - December 11, 2002 - Cloture Attempts on Nominations
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS20801.pdf
RL30360 - March 28, 2003 - Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30360.pdf
RL32843 - March 28, 2005 - "Entrenchment" of Senate Procedure and the "Nuclear" Option for Change
http://www.afj.org/judicial/crsnuclear.pdf
RL31948 - March 29, 2005 - Evolution of Senate's Role in Nomination/Confirmation
http://shelby.senate.gov/legislation/JudNom-History.pdf
RL32684 - April 5, 2005 - Changing Senate Rules - The "Nuclear" Option
http://www.andrewhyman.com/crs.pdf
Riddick's Senate Procedure
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/riddick/browse.html
Snow, Collins, McCain, Voinovich, Specter. We'll need Cheney to break the tie. Don't count your Hatch before he chickens. Has Frist turned a single Democrat? Not likely.
Frist was on the radio this am saying this week's manuevers will lay the groundwork for "next week." Real soon now, uh huh.
No judges, no bucks.
And if this vote is taken? Apologies to Senator Frist should be forthcoming at the time. I don't believe they will be, apologies are never offered by those that were wrong in their criticism. Justification is instead offered.
Senator Frist, Good Luck. RINO's, we're watching you.
WP and NYT's are evidently freaking out given their articles today. lol