Posted on 05/19/2005 8:34:20 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said Thursday that President Bush and Republican senators are trying to "rewrite the Constitution and reinvent reality" in their push to confirm controversial judicial nominees.
"The Senate is not a rubber stamp for the executive branch," Reid said. "Rather, we're the one institution where the minority has a voice and the ability to check the power of the majority. Today, in the face of President Bush's power grab, that's more important than ever."
Republicans are threatening to eliminate the Democrats' ability to use filibusters to block Bush's judicial picks, beginning with federal appeals court nominee Priscilla Owen.
Reid says that the Constitution does not require that judicial nominees get confirmation votes, allowing the minority to block them. Bush and other Republicans who argue otherwise "rewrite the Constitution and reinvent reality," he said.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said he will call a vote next week on whether Republican senators are willing to let the minority Democrats continue to block the White House's judicial appointments through filibusters.
"The principle is that judicial nominees with support of a majority of United States senators deserve a fair up-or-down vote on the floor of the United States Senate," Frist said.
But while senators argue over Owen's nomination on the Senate floor, the driving force in backroom negotiations in the Capitol is how senators will treat a future Supreme Court nominee if a vacancy opens up in the next two years.
"This whole debate, for me, is about the Supreme Court," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), R-S.C., one of the Senate negotiators who scurried from office to office Wednesday trying to work out a deal that would avoid a showdown over whether to block the use of filibusters against judicial nominees. "What do you do with the next level? Can you get the Senate back to more of a normal working situation?"
Senate negotiators were to get back to work Thursday trying to find a compromise on confirming Owen and the seven other U.S. Appeals Court nominees. But while lower court nominees are at the forefront of the argument, the clear subtext of the debate is how the Senate will treat a future Supreme Court nominee from President Bush.
Republican leaders are concerned that Democrats want to enshrine judicial filibusters in the Senate so they can block a future Bush nominee to the nation's highest court, along with Owen and the six other lower court nominees they already have blocked using the parliamentary tactic that requires 60 votes to overcome.
While there are no current vacancies, Supreme Court watchers expect a retirement before the end of Bush's presidency. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who is 80, is fighting thyroid cancer.
"When a Supreme Court position becomes open the issue will be, will it require 60 votes to approve a Supreme Court judge — something that's never required — or will it be a majority vote? Must we have a super majority?" said Sen. Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan.
But Democrats worry that Republicans want to get rid of judicial filibusters so the White House can use the Senate's GOP majority to ram through a nominee that Democrats will find extreme and objectionable. If such a move were to succeed, it would give the GOP full control over which nominees could be confirmed for lifetime judgeships since the party controls the White House and has a 55-44-1 majority in the Senate.
"If Republicans roll back our rights in this chamber, there will be no check on their power," Reid said. "The radical right wing will be free to pursue any agenda they want. And not just on judges. Their power will be unchecked on Supreme Court nominees, the president's nominees in general and legislation like Social Security privatization."
Senate centrists hope to avoid both options. If they can get 12 senators to agree to a deal — six Republicans and six Democrats — they can prevent Frist from banning judicial filibusters and keep Reid from filibustering Bush appointees.
Under the most recent Republican-crafted offer, Democrats would have to allow the confirmation of six Bush nominees: Owen, California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, former Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, as well as Michigan nominees Susan Neilson, David McKeague and Richard Griffin. The Senate would scuttle the nominations of Idaho lawyer William Myers and Michigan nominee Henry Saad, aides said.
But more importantly, both sides would have to operate on "good faith" when it comes to future nominations. Republicans would be bound not to ban judicial filibusters only if Democrats forswear judicial filibusters on court nominees except for extraordinary situations, aides said.
The aides spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions are being held behind closed doors.
"If we can get through this week, really, get through these eight, I think calmer heads will prevail down the road and we'll have a better chance of dealing with the Supreme Court nominees in a traditional way," Graham said.
Exactly.
I'm going to spam a few threads with those quotes because I can see that I wasn't the only one who had not seen them before.
And that our own people in the Senate aren't using those quotes is really ticking me off.
I notice that (surprise!!) the AP is either unwilling (likely) or unable (ideologically) to research and include a few basic facts, like maybe the actual WORDING of the constitution itself.
Instead it, predictably, parrots the DNC talking points.
So what? Neither does the Constitution require a supermajority approval. At least not explicitly.
It must be hard to choose balanced words when they see everything from the Dem point of view.
Why yes, the Republicans are going to reinvent the Democrat's "reality" that they continue to control the judiciary even though they lost the election.
Bout time too!
This shows how little respect Reid has for all the Republican senators as well as the people who elect them.
I am certain that if there was a matter that was not preferred by the majority of the public, there would be GOP senators opposed. Even in his example of Social Security reform, there is opposition.
"Demcrcats acuse the acuser ...."
this is the very tactic that Barbara Owen (rest her soul) pointed out as Hillary's strategy in Owen's book on Hillary (can't remember the title).
The tactic is to put the offensive on the defensive by shifting blame. Hillary's strategy which I noticed yesterday, Barbara Boxer had adopted as well. Good students, these dems, learning from Hillary.
He's right. So let's have 51 Senators sign a letter to the President, which says, "We hereby advise favorably and consent to the appointment of X to the Judiciary" Yet another Constitutional solution.
They're "liarcrats" what do you expect?
FNC says they have been told a compromise might happen "within the hour"
YES, by electing more Republicans, then what will the "minority" say?
The Democrats haven't operated in good faith since the Kennedy years. Why do these boneheads on the hill think they will suddenly see the light and begin now?????
Remember the anthrax attacks after 911 both R's and D's decided that they needed to recess because of concerns for the lives of staff? The R's announced it and the D's said pretty much, "Hey you pussies, we didn't agree to that?"
If the Republican leadership is looking for good-faith from the Democrats, they all need to be replaced for being moronic,idiotic, stupid imbiciles.
Beware the Pink Menace.
There had better not be ANY compromise that sacrices candidates.
I PRAY this is just a fluff propaganda piece put out by the democrates.
If there is a compromise, I will blame McCain. The Manchurian Senator.
lets see... the dems continue to proclaim they represent the majority... even as they continue to loose election after election...
Who's Reinventing Reality?
LOL !
that pink piglet looks like she's about to drop a load !
LOOK OUT !
With this kind of talk from Democrats, the Republican majority is solidifying. Harry Reid can go on with this verbal war if he wants to, but he's not improving his situation at all.
Losers. Every one of 'em a big, effing, loser....
Re-enacting a Hillary moment, I think.
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.