Text of Filibuster Deal

Received via e-mail | Monday, May 23, 2005 | Rats and Rinos

[kristinn]

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

 

We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and Democratic Leader Reid. This memorandum confirms an understanding among the signatories, based upon mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future judicial nominations in the 109th Congress.

 

This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the Senate’s Judiciary Committee.

 

We have agreed to the following:

 

Part I:  Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations

 

A.        Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit).

 

B.        Status of Other Nominees. Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit).

 

Part II:  Commitments for Future Nominations

 

A.        Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.

 

B.        Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.

 

We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word “Advice” speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President’s power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.

 

Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.

 

We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold.

[cardinal4]

I'm assuming the plan is McCain/Graham vs. Hitlery/Obama in 2008.

Which one is the conservative ticket?

[Hebrews 11:6]

one of them admitted to being a troll - or at least didn't deny it

That's your yardstick?

It depends, who's side are you on?

Of course, no one calls someone names with whom he agrees. My point is, name-calling has no place in a reasoned debate, which is the preferred format at FR. Have you noticed you're the only one on this thread doing it? What license have you been granted that the rest don't have?

[Redleg Duke]

Thank God someone gets it! The RATS caved!

[America's Resolve]

They would have lost a constitutional option vote.

How do you know? Now we'll never know will we? At least not until 2006.

And it's worse than that. If we'd pushed through this option, it could have answered the question of filibusters of nominees as far as the eye can see. EVERY nominee until the end of term would require 51 votes instead of 64.

What does this deal guarantee?

we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress,

So while the nuke option might have worked by reducing the number of votes required to merely a majority, they've guaranteed that that solution can never succeed now. In ALL future nominations, 64 votes will be needed until 2006 to approve a nominee instead of 51.

That's not a win. They gave up 3 nominees in return for the right to threaten to filibuster EVERY other nominee to come from the WH. ESPECIALLY SC NOMINEES!

And worse yet, lefties get to decided which are the 'extraordinary circumstances' in which they can trigger a filibuster.

You're dreaming if you think this is a win for the Repubs.

[okie01]

I don't see this deal involving Frist or Reid at all.

It certainly didn't involve Frist.

But I would not be surprised if Reid wasn't pushing for it.

Consider what the Democrats got:

1. The freedom to conduct a filibuster against any and all judicial nominees, save three -- based on a promise by the GOP majority that they would not change the rules to silence said filibuster.

2. Avoidance of any political cost that would have been entailed in filibustering Owens and Brown -- a qualified female and female minority nominee.

And what did the Democrats give up?

1. Their power to filibuster three politically-charged nominees.

2. And the probable liklihood of a defeat on those three nominees, via a successful cloture vote.

In other words, the Democrats gave up what was already lost. And they preserved their "right to obstruct" and even enlisted seven GOP senators in defense of their now impregnable position.

Reid got everything he could hope to achieve. Frist got screwed -- along with the conservative GOP senators, all of us conservative voters and the entire country.

[livius]

Democrats abandoned their own party to make a deal with RINOs.

Interesting take on it. I'm trying to sort out reality from perception here.

Of course, in any case, the press is going to portray it as a Dem win.

[BobL]

Well you asked. OK, you too are a RINO.

We lost, and if you have any doubts, why not take a look at what the Dems think of this deal:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1803753

Based on the posts on this thread, something tells me the results would be opposite if the same poll were given here.

The bottom line here is that the Dems keep the right to filibuster, and the Reps lose the right of majority rule. That may suit you, but it has angered the Republicans, big time, and made the Dems very, very happy.

[shellshocked]

"He has to accept it because he has 7 Rino senators who now will not vote for the nuclear option."


Just my opinion, but I would not accept the deal and hold the RINOs the the constitutional option. And, yes, I also refuse to compromise my ethics in real-life as well. Money be damned.

[handy]

You forgot to list the seven Democrats who signed this deal. With only 36 Senators, Dingy Reid lost the ability to sustain a cloture vote. His party didn't exactly hang together. 7 Democrats abandoned their own party to make a deal with RINOs. I don't think the liberal interest groups are exactly cheering this. Their own party sold them out too.

I didn't forget, Harry was already Minority leader. It looks like 7 Rinos have now turned Frist into one also. The RINOs screwed their party out of a victory, the 7 Dems cut a great deal for their side in giving up only 3 judges.

Huge PR victory for the Dems to not have to vote against those 3.

I'm not so mad at Frist, but those 7 RINOS are another matter.

[jess35]

The nuclear option is on the table? BWAHAHAHAHA!!! The seven Republican senators know they have more power than the majority leader. There will never be a nuclear option now. Never.

[Sun]

If you want, you can call the Republican National Committee at 202-863-8500, and tell them you won't be contributing to them and tell them WHY.

Press #1 comment line, but if that's full call again and press #3 media line.

Be nice, because the person answering the phone might not be a RINO. My husband talked with someone who seemed to agree with him. My husband called twice, and I called several times.

We will, however, contribute to individual pro-life conservatives with a backbone.

[LibertarianInExile]

Great minds think alike. That was the subject of my vanity on the subject here. That would solve the problem handily.

[itsahoot]

Frist did not do this! What is wrong with you!

Maybe not, but I can tell you for sure, that the traitors had no fear of him, so what does that say about his Leadership???

If these traitors pay a price for their treason I may cut him a little slack, but I doubt it.

[mollynme]

All this means is that the first three will get an up or down vote and then the Nuc Option is on the table for the first filibuster that the RATS pull.

Do you really think these rinos will ever allow the nuclear option back on the table?

[strategofr]

"Uh...what were you saying about respect? Is the President supposed to gain respect by dictating senate rules?"

Sometimes its not about "gaining respect." Its about winning.

[Colorado Buckeye]

Bush should nominate Bork for something tommorrow AM. The nuke would start ticking by morning coffee break.

Wrong! There is no more nuke in this Congress. It's history. We gave it away.

[rod1]

Recess appointments galore dead ahead.

[jess35]

Winning by trying to tell the Senate how they should act? That's a win? For who?

[goldstategop]

True, we'll never know. However, the bottom line is a vote will now take place on the President's nominees.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[BobL]

"Of course, no one calls someone names with whom he agrees. My point is, name-calling has no place in a reasoned debate, which is the preferred format at FR. Have you noticed you're the only one on this thread doing it? What license have you been granted that the rest don't have?"

If you had any idea of how many names I've been called, simply because I oppose my Republican Governor's plan to turn our freeways into toll roads here in Texas, you would understand why I think name calling is commonly done on this site.