Frank: No nukes on Hill! Reverses '93 filibuster stand

Boston Herald ^ | Sunday, May 22, 2005 | Andrew Miga

[Radix]

 WASHINGTON - U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, who publicly crusaded against Senate filibusters 12 years ago, now says he opposes banning filibusters against judicial nominees - the so-called ``nuclear option'' fueling a bruising Capitol Hill showdown.
     ``I would vote against changing the filibuster rule right now,'' Frank (D-Newton) told the Herald in a telephone interview Thursday. Frank explained he still supports an ``across-the-board'' ban against all filibusters, but he opposes the Republican ``nuclear option'' because it only outlaws filibusters against judicial nominees.
     ``I object to (a filibuster ban) being used in a very specific instance,'' Frank said. ``If they make an improvement going forward, I would maybe look at it differently.''
     Frank's comments come as the Senate braces for a showdown vote over President Bush's filibustered judicial picks, a battle that could affect federal justices from the district level all the way to the next Supreme Court nominee.
     In 1993, Frank led a public fight to end Senate filibusters, asserting in a Washington Post op-ed piece: ``I believe legislative bodies should scrupulously abide by two principles: complete openness and majority rule. The filibuster is a godsend to potential gridlockers.''
     Republicans at the time were using filibusters to block President Clinton's agenda in the Democratic-controlled Senate. Today, it is frustrated Democrats in the GOP-run Senate who are using filibuster tactics to block Bush's judicial nominees, whom they consider to be too conservative.
     The time-honored Senate practice of the filibuster, whereby lawmakers can block a nominee or a bill by refusing to stop debating, has sparked acrimony on Capitol Hill expected to reach a climax this week. Sixty of 100 Senate votes are required to kill a filibuster.
     Republicans, who accuse Democrats of blocking Bush's judge picks for sheer partisan advantage, want a straight up-or-down majority vote on the president's court picks. Their bill would outlaw filibusters against judicial nominees.
     Frank scoffed at Republican claims Bush is being unfairly shortchanged on nominees.
      The Newton Democrat recalled the nomination of former Bay State Gov. William F. Weld to be ambassador to Mexico. GOP senators blocked a vote on Weld because they questioned his conservative credentials. ``Why didn't the Republicans apply the same standard to Bill Weld?'' Frank asked.

[Radix]

National Review had posted on their web page a NY Times editorial the other day which also demonstrated sheer hypocrisy on the matter,

[Mr. K]

God Bless the Internet.

It is SO MUCH easier to find their hypocracies.. now if only we had more than FOX to report their lies.

[Maceman]

I am absolutely stunned that Andrew Miga wrote this story. Even though the Boston Herald is pretty conservative editorially, Miga has always been the poster child for left-wing biased "news" reporting.

[packrat35]

And this is news because of what? He is Gay? A Democrat? in the House? Since he is a House member, it really doesn't matter what he thinks.

[brivette]

It means that the gay left wing mob has gotten the memo that they're toast.

[MikefromOhio]

It means that the gay left wing mob has gotten the memo that they're toast.

That's an odd statement considering the story....

[Ron in Acreage]

On Meet the Press earlier this morning, Russert sowed a video of Lieberman saying that judicial filibusters are unconstitutional. And they should be removed from the senate rules. He now says the opposite. Can you say hypocrite?

[Tunehead54]

The time-honored Senate practice of the filibuster, whereby lawmakers can block a nominee or a bill by refusing to stop debating, has sparked acrimony on Capitol Hill expected to reach a climax this week. Sixty of 100 Senate votes are required to kill a filibuster.

---

This is an outright lie. The filibuster has never been used to block nominees. The Abe Fortas filibuster was used ONCE and was used to prevent a sitting justice, not a nominee, from being appointed as Chief Justice. Fortas had serious ethical problems and resigned a couple years later under a cloud.

[b4its2late]

He voted for the judicial filibuster before he voted against it!

[b4its2late]

"Time honored"... Yeah, right.

[SolidSupplySide]

``I would vote against changing the filibuster rule right now,'' Frank (D-Newton) told the Herald in a telephone interview Thursday. Frank explained he still supports an ``across-the-board'' ban against all filibusters, but he opposes the Republican ``nuclear option'' because it only outlaws filibusters against judicial nominees.

If Democrats united around Rep. Frank's philosophy, it might cause problems for Republicans.

If the filibuster is bad, let's get rid of it, the Democrats could say. If the GOP balks, it would highlight a little hypocrisy along the lines of the Democrats' "cigarettes are bad, but lets tax them, not ban them" tripe.