Posted on 05/19/2005 10:29:56 AM PDT by SmithL
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee has dug in his heels on winning confirmation of President Bush's most controversial judicial nominees.
But beyond his grasp, a group of Democrats and Republicans has been working on a compromise that would allow votes on some nominees and avert a debilitating confrontation.
Such a bipartisan deal could undercut Frist's political standing in his remaining months as Senate leader. He's indicated he won't seek another term next year.
Vanderbilt University professor Bruce Oppenheimer sees Frist's stance as unusual.
Oppenheimer says majority leaders tend to leave themselves room to maneuver, but says Frist has "put his feet in cement."
Government professor John Pitney Junior at Claremont McKenna College in California says if Frist gets rolled on this issue, he's going to look "a lot less like a gladiator and more like Barney Fife."
Despite the forces aligned against him, Frist has emerged a survivor before.
Tennessee Republican fundraiser Ted Welch of Nashville says Frist is used to doing the impossible.
Could? No could about it.
Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Delaware) March 19, 1997: “But I also respectfully suggest that everyone who is nominated is entitled to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor.”
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Illinois)September 28, 1998: “We should meet our responsibility. I think that responsibility requires us to act in a timely fashion on nominees sent before us. ... Vote the person up or down.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) September 11, 1997: “Let’s bring their nominations up, debate them if necessary, and vote them up or down.”
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)February 3, 1998: “We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don’t like them, vote against them. But give them a vote.”
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) May 10, 2000: “The Founding Fathers certainly intended that the Senate advise as to judicial nominations, i.e., consider, debate, and vote up or down. They surely did not intend that the Senate, for partisan or factional reasons, would remain silent and simply refuse to give any advice or consider and vote at all.”
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) 5/14/97 : “It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.”
Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD): “I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination.” (Congressional Record, 10/5/99)
Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Delaware) March 19, 1997: “But I also respectfully suggest that everyone who is nominated is entitled to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor.”
Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD): “Hispanic or non-Hispanic, African American or non-African American, woman or man, it is wrong not to have a vote on the Senate floor.” (Congressional Record, 10/28/99)
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): “My expectation is that we’re not going to hold up judicial nominations. …You will not see us do what was done to us in recent years in the Senate with judicial nominations.” (Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume,” 6/4/01)
Richard Durbin (D-IL) "If, after 150 days languishing on the Executive Calendar that name has not been called for a vote, it should be. Vote the person up or down." (Cong. Rec., 9/28/98, S11021)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “Let’s bring their nominations up, debate them if necessary, and vote them up or down.” (Congressional Record, 9/11/97)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “It is our job to confirm these judges. If we don’t like them, we can vote against them.” (Congressional Record, 9/16/99)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “Our institutional integrity requires an up-or-down vote.” (Congressional Record, 10/4/99)
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA): “[The filibuster process] is used … as blackmail for one Senator to get his or her way on something that they could not rightfully win through the normal processes.” (Congressional Record, 1/4/95)
Tom Harkin (D-IA) "Have the guts to come out and vote up or down….And once and for all, put behind us this filibuster procedure on nominations." (Cong. Rec., 6/22/95, S8861)
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA): “I urge the Republican leadership to take the steps necessary to allow the full Senate to vote up or down on these important nominations.” (Congressional Record, 9/11/00)
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don’t like them, vote against them. But give them a vote.” (Congressional Record, 2/3/98)
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “It is true that some Senators have voiced concerns about these nominations. But that should not prevent a roll call vote which gives every Senator the opportunity to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ ... Parties with cases, waiting to be heard by the federal courts deserve a decision by the Senate.” (Congressional Record, 9/21/99)
Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI): “These nominees, who have to put their lives on hold waiting for us to act, deserve an ‘up or down’ vote.” (Congressional Record, 9/21/99)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “I hope we … will accept our responsibility and vote people up or vote them down. … If we want to vote against them, vote against them.” (Congressional Record, 10/22/97)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “Now, every Senator can vote against any nominee. … But it is the responsibility of the U.S. Senate to at least bring them to a vote.” (Congressional Record, 10/22/97)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “ "I have stated over and over again … that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported …” (Congressional Record, 6/18/98)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “Earlier this year … I noted how improper it would be to filibuster a judicial nomination.” (Congressional Record, 10/14/98)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “If the person is otherwise qualified, he or she gets the vote. … Vote them up, vote them down.” (Congressional Record, 9/21/99)
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): “We should have up-or-down votes in the committee and on the floor.” (CNN’s “Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields,” 6/9/01)
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): “We are charged with voting on the nominees. The Constitution does not say if the Congress is controlled by a different party than the President there shall be no judges chosen.” (Congressional Record, 3/7/00)
Carl Levin (D-MI) "If a bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate is prepared to vote to confirm the President's appointment, that vote should occur." (Cong. Rec., 6/21/95, S8806)
I didn't gather the quotes; other Freepers did the research.
A really balanced article, eh?..BTEW..when Frist pulls it of..he's gonna look very good to the base. All the complaining about "why has it taken so long" will disappear..
If they make this deal, it would be no different than making a deal with the DEVIL.
Like the devil, the democrats are very slick, manipulative, sneaky and deceitful liars.
I certainly the Republicans don't allow the democrats to fool them.
geee..wonder who Mr. Junior contributes to...
Wrong.
If McCain and his cadre of leftist RINOs achieves a
"compromise", Frist doesn't loose out. WE DO.
So does the Constitution, and the entire premise of the Republican argument against the use of filibusters to block Presidential appointments.
Frist could lose out, WRONG!!!! Nice try AP. And now, we interrupt this regularly scheduled MSM spin for a dose of reality. Win lose or draw, Frist wins. By virtue of finally trying end the filibuster of Judges, Frist has scored HUGE points with his base. Moreover, Frist will have eliminated potentional opposition (any Republican Senator who compromises) for getting the Republican nomination.
Pitney is a conservative Republican.
Great work anyway Peach.
I'm taking notes. I expect our guys to be completely unreasonable when they are in the minority, and then I expect the media to back them up, and call on the majority to "be resonable" by at least allowing the minority to rule haif the time.
This is a bellwether issue. If Frist fails and the Republicans fold - that's it. They're finished. F'em. They will have proved that they are absolutely worthless in implementing the agenda that has been absolutely clear, and that we fought like bloody hell to put'em in power to effect.
"If" says a lot about the way AP would love for this to go.
The only way Frist can lose is if he compromises and backs down.
The first sentence of the article is a lie. Frist is insisting on a vote, not approval.
..for class.
The AP's concern for Bill Frist is touching. Heck, tears are coming to my eyes right now.
It would be nice if these quotes could be put in a full page ad in every major newspaper in the country.
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.