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.
We'll see, if it's true Republicans win, except we all know the MSM will "explain" how the DUmmies really won.
Black is white, white is black, Democrat=good, Republican=bad.
However, and I plead ignorance to this, why is there hesitancy on the part of the Republican leadership to use the so called "nuclear option"? What are the negative ramifications that could come about from the "nuclear" decision ?
No kidding! Apparently, his REALITY is a compilation of his fellow liberal's dillusions?
I think they either all NEED some medication, or they all ARE on medication?
This is from Sen Nelson (d) who has been the ring leader of the compromise effort (capitulation) by the RINO cowardly cabal of six.
Nelson was on hanity last night and said the six did not want to be identified. (only McCain was confirmed and Lott was implied.)
As usual, the 'Rats only insist on an up or down vote for LIBERAL nominees. The 'Rats have invented a new form of governing and I call it Hypocracy.
"If Republicans roll back our rights in this chamber, there will be no check on their power," Reid said.
IMHO, if Reid would just read the Constitution, he MIGHT learn that an election will be held next year, whereby the PEOPLE can decide if they want to "check" the power of the Republicans or not.
Or are the Democrats simply afraid to rely on the PEOPLE?
Rush Just said compromise has FAILED!
Per Frist.
Great quotes. I just emailed each senator his/her quote, not to remind them, because I'm sure other Freepers have done so, but just to let them know I'm thinking of them.
The Repblicans keep missing the importance of the greatest lie that the Democrats are making in this whole filibuster fiasco and how their failure to address that lie, head-on is letting the Democrats set the public relations agenda on this discussion.
That lie, that the Democrats are trying to instill in the public mind, is that the constitutional checks and balances were intended to provide "checks and balances" between the power of "Republicans" and the power of "Democrats" and not, as they actually are, simply between the powers of the excutive (President) and legislature (congress).
The Democrats are getting away with convincing the public that if the Democrats are not able to prevent a judicial nomination then the "constitutional checks and balances" are not working. That lie seeks to grant to their party the complete rights of the full Senate, not simply their share of the Senate's votes - which is all the constitution grants them.
The other half of their lie is the selling to the public the idea that if there are not Senators opposing the President's judicial nominees, then the Senate is not doing its job. Whereas, the truth is, they simply don't like it that a majority of Senator's actually like the President's judicial nominees, and that is what the constitution asks for - a senate majority - not a "Republican majority" or a "Democrat majority", a "Senate majority".
Frist, Specter, et al, have weakly responded to the Dims charges with the minimalist defense - "the President's nominees deserve a vote" - while failing, completely, to counter, forcefully the conceptual lies that the Dims' public relations campaign has sold to the American people. They even let the MSM (ABC/NBC/CBS) use, without challenge, the Democrats' talking-point-term "controversial nominees". As if they are "controversial" simply because a Democrat calls them "controversial".
Due to this major public relations error, Frist may get the votes he wants but the Dims have already outflanked him by convincing many people of the lie that the resulting judicial nominations will have been stolen by an abrogation of the "checks and balances".
The Senate is full of Republican light-weights.
Reid needs a good Heart attack.
I agree.
The MSM is not demanding they be passed ONLY that candates get their vote.
The MSM is missing the fact that this is an effort for a minority to gain CONTROL not compromise.
Last time I read the Constitution, it provided checks and balances on the various branches and departments of government; not on majority/minority parties.
In fact, it didn't mention "parties" at all.
I also don't recall seeing the word "filibuster" in the Constitution, either. Besides the news, the only place it turns up in the Senate Rules, which are written by the Senate, as provided by the Constitution's mandate that each Chamber write its own rules.
I now understand why high schools started slowly changing the focus of Civics classes from the analysis of basic documents and structure of national, state, and local governmets, to guided discussion "current events" 30-40 years ago.
Thanks, but NO THANKS! Not even if it was guarenteed to save Ellsworth AFB as part of the deal, do I want him back.
ROTFLMAO - good one!
Like he would know.
When was the illustrious Sen. Reid last in touch with reality?
The first day Reid said, "what the republicans are doing is illegal" - LIE
The second day Reid said, "the republicans are re-writing the Constitution" - LIE
Besides being the part of NO - the dems are the party of LIES.
It worked well for saddam hussein until...
If I am not mistaken, and I very well may be, this is not her royal heinous' strategery, but can be found in the real play book, Mein Kampf.
I have a feeling Reid isn't going to be in the Senate after the next election. He's made so many moronic public statements lately, his constituents must be getting sick of being made to look like fools for electing him.
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.