Frist Said to Have 'Nuclear Option' Votes

NewsMax ^ | 5/22/05 | Carl Limbacher

[wagglebee]

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist reportedly has the votes to enforce the so-called "nuclear option" against judicial filibusters instigated by Democrats, despite claims to the contrary by Minority Leader Harry Reid.

After a Thursday meeting with Senate Democrats, Reid boasted he was ready for the coming battle. "It was one of the most pleasant experiences of my entire life," he told reporters. "We walked out of there so united. We talked about what's going to happen after Tuesday," when the filibuster showdown is expected to come to head.

But according to New York Times columnist David Brooks, Reid was blowing smoke.

"Harry Reid, told a small group of us Friday he was cautiously optimistic that he had the votes to defeat the nuclear option, but I think he's wrong," Brooks said Sunday.

"John McCain, Lincoln Chafee, John Warner and maybe Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe will vote against the nuclear option, but none of the other Republicans are likely to."

"Bill Frist has the votes," he predicted.

Brooks also reports that attempts by Senate moderates to hammer out a deal to avoid the filibuster showdown have collapsed.

"The talks stalled. Joe Lieberman didn't bother to attend the final meeting. Positions will probably harden over the weekend, making a deal less likely tomorrow," he said.

[JayNorth]

this vote, if its true, will end McCain's presidential bid.

McCain is a clown and an embarrassment to our party. He is definitely missing one oar, if you know what I mean.

[strategofr]

"this way, they will come back and be able to use the filibuster's again to stop a SCOTUS nominee"

I can't see why the Dems would not do this. The Repubs either do not realize they will weaken on this over time (under full scale MSM battering) or the Repub leadership (ie Frist) may be under Dem control. Perhaps Hillary has an FBI file on him.

[c-five]

If Reid doesn't have the votes to win on the nuclear option then the Dems will supply the votes necessary to get to the 60 needed for cloture

Oh! That is just so delicious! So Frist needs to supply a few republican votes AGAINST the cloture to avoid this tactic, and keep up the deception. End game! I would not want to be Mr. Reid right now.

[JayNorth]

If the RINOs want to be Democrooks, so be it.

Exactly! We're better off without them. That lame excuse that they give us an (R) candidate in a state that otherwise be (D) is dumb. What good is an (R) candidate that votes against his/her own party whenever it matters most? They're not "moderate Republicans", they're DemonRATs.

[Colorado Buckeye]

Such as they are. McCain said this morning that he is not worried because he has plenty of conservative support. This is his brain on drugs.

Apparently he doesn't visit Feeperland. I'm sure that some of our cohorts love this guy, but I don't think there are many.

[Colorado Buckeye]

Everyone forgets McManiac can pull a Ross Pirouette and run independent.

You've got it half right. He will run as an independent, but not for president. He will declare himself an independent and accept Hillary's offer of the VP slot. He is a perfect complement to Hillary and it will be a very difficult ticket to beat.

[strategofr]

"The Dems cannot throw in the towel on the cloture vote or the option without seriously alternating their liberal base."

You are mistaken. The Dem base is more sophisticated than you imagine. They know, as we do, that there is only one thing that matters: Supreme Court Justices. All they have to do is break the Republican will by avoiding the nuclear option vote until the Supreme Court nominees are actually in front of them. By that time, the whole thing should be moot. I would think the Democrats will have firmed up a majority.

I hope I am wrong, but this seems correct.

If I am correct, we Conservatives cannot get discouraged. WE just have to realize that we are fighting a subversive enemy (call it the Left) that has taken over the Dems and the MSM, as well as made a certain penetration into the Republican Party.

We have to stop assuming that our enemies are "well meaning." Hillary murders people. Her mentors, the former KGB, are experts in blackmail. She (and her ilk) now effectively control the Democratic Party.

We need to keep our cool and keep fighting. Its still a minority that wants dictatorship in this country. Most Democrats would oppose Hillary, if they knew the truth about her.


We must convey that truth before 11/2008. If we beat Hillary, all will be well in the long run.

I hope I am wrong about the nuclear option, but it looks like Frist is really on the other side.

[strategofr]

"accept Hillary's offer of the VP slot"

Yep.

[JCEccles]

this vote, if its true, will end McCain's presidential bid.

A silver stake right through the heart.

[MinuteGal]

Bingo!

You hit it right on the head.

Leni

[JayNorth]

I would not want to be Mr. Reid right now.

I would not want to be Mr. Reid AT ANY TIME! Out here in Nevada they paint him as some kind of "soft-spoken common man's hero". I almost lose my lunch every time I hear that line.

[zbigreddogz]

I think he'd take some sort of compromise if it was available, but if the nuclear option comes up, he'll be on our side.

[Cboldt]

They know, as we do, that there is only one thing that matters: Supreme Court Justices. All they have to do is break the Republican will by avoiding the nuclear option vote until the Supreme Court nominees are actually in front of them.

I'm leaning that way as well.

A "dry run," where the GOP threatens the nuclear option but doesn't deliver it (because the DEMs approve cloture) will work in DEM favor. How? Some GOP will take the failure to execute the nuclear option as a GOP failure. They've been conditioned to think that Frist has the trigger! Also, the build up of debate for days, with no release except the vote on the nominee, will wear the Senators down.

Pull this a couple times, and the entire public will tire of what it sees as "a charade." All of that leads to "more care" in choosing SCOTUS nominees.

[Colorado Buckeye]

Good, we need someone to counteract the probable third party run on Tancredo or some other "15 minutes of fame" isolationist.

Tancredo won't be running as a third party candidate and there is nothing isolationist about protecting our country from invasion.

[California Patriot]

You have described exactly what is likely to happen.

[Cboldt]

I have advocated that cloture (Rule XXII) not be invoked, and have a list of concepts, reasons, signals, etc. that support my reasoning. I also speculated that cloture would be avoided, and as we now know, I was completely wrong in that speculation.

• Using cloture puts some control of the matter in DEM hands. If the cloture motion passes becuase a handful of DEMs support it, the minority retains the abilities to block a future nominee and create this same tiresome ruckus all over again
• The public is conditioned to see the GOP as wielding the nuclear trigger. If cloture passes, the trigger is not executed, and many in the GOP base will (incorrectly) perceive GOP weakness.
• One of the purposes of cloture, in fact the reason it exists, is to limit debate. Frist indicates no intention to limit debate on the nominee, hence, no need for cloture.
• The rights to unlimited debate and to withold consent to vote are designed to facilitate compromise. But in a nominee, no adjustment can be made. Compromise is an inapplicable notion when the matter under consideration is a nominee. The nominee is either suitable for the post, or not. "Yes or no," is the only question.
  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1404953/posts?page=13#13
• Trading the 60 vote supermajority to take a vote (of cloture) for unanimous consent (the underlying Senate tradition) forces individual Senators to individually object to voting, and defend their individual "right" to deny rendering their judgement on a nominee. That is, a single Senator withholding consent to the vote will CLEARLY be seen as an abuse of Senatorial discretion, where cloture is NOT clearly seen as extreme.
• If cloture fails, and the vote is to proceed anyway, having invoked Rule XXII creates a risk of falling into the rules change pitfall, where 2/3rd supermajority is required to change a rule.
• Avoiding the use or change of Rule XXII in the context of a nominee would retain cloture, as it is, for legislative matters.
• The Senate has no right to withhold a vote when the vote is on a matter that affects another branch. In this case, a minority of Senators are rejecting an officer of the president's choosing - it should take a simple majority of Senators to reject.
• Senate practice regarding traties, as reflected in Riddick's, implements the principle above, except instead of requiring a simple majority to postpone a vote on a treaty, Riddick's notes the Senate requires 2/3rds majority vote, to postpone a decision on a treaty.
  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1407096/posts?page=29#29
• Moving ahead without invoking cloture can be spun to the gullible public as a "compromise," saving face for the DEMs and RINO's.

[Don Carlos]

Thank you, FRiend!

[af_vet_1981]

I don't understand how a former POW is so disloyal to his own team. If he wants to be a Democrook he should join their party. If he wants to be a Republican, let alone in the Republican leadership (which includes candidates for President), he should show some loyalty.

He is the most unreliable Republican Senator.

[smiley]

....Thank God....

[smiley]

....then the democrats should agree to an up or down vote!