Posted on 05/23/2005 5:23:07 PM PDT by 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.
Third parties always lose and hand the elections to the RATs. It has never failed.
The republicans in the senate did today did is what President Bush resolutely refuses and will not do, Thank God, is negotiate with terrorists.
"Nothing in the deal says this. There is no guarantee that they will vote to confirm - the only guarantee is to end the filibuster."
You are right. They should get confirmed, but who's to know that there's not a handshake vote to reject these guys on the floor?
It even worse than I thought.
John Warner is probably not running again.
The RNC will not let you get McCain, he bought his next election with his almost faultless support of the President in the last election, against his "best friend" John Kerry.
Graham is in trouble, and has been for a while it seems. I think he's a good target since it is unlikely a democrat is going to challenge for that seat.
The other three are essentially gifts to the republican party. They could all jump to the democrat side and probably get elected. We may not like it, but just like Jeffords, there aren't enough conservatives in those states to put the candidates we like in the senate. At least these moderates USUALLY vote with us.
We needed to take out the red-state democrats, or convince them to support us over their own party. The agreement signed today does that in a small way, but we needed to do it in a big way. It doesn't help that we keep targetting the ones that vote WITH us.
If you wanted to make a point, (all of you) would target Graham, and make "an example" of him for the rest of them.
Senator John Warner is rather difficult to reach by phone, so here's the link to send him your message. Just click & fill out the form and give him your brief message:
http://warner.senate.gov/contact/contactme.cfm
I will tell him not to compromise with the Dems when the opportunity for a Constitutional option comes up again, probably on or after June 27 when Justice William Rehnquist resigns as expected, and if the Dems filibuster President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court which is also expected.
Maybe I'm nuts, but I won't give up until all hope is gone. We still need to pressure RINOs to use the Constitutional option on or after June 27 IMO.
I think McCain deserves respect. I think he is intelligent, and I do not doubt his sincerity. I just think he's a bit of a circus barker, and I think he's very wrong in this instance (and others). For the life of me I can't figure out his "political philosophy" and many of his positions.
So what does this do to the Bolton nomination? Does he get an up or down vote or is he subjected to the filibuster?
I expect that only now will the full-court sliming/Borking will begin, as the lefty organizations, at this point, can only throw fits and threaten their elected officials to prevent the nominations from being approved. They are definitely going to step up the attacks - it's their only option at this point.
OTOH, the RINOs think they can save some face with conservatives by speaking out strongly in favor of these three nominations.
It's still a huge mess and nothing - nothing - guarantees that all three nominations will be approved.
I wouldn't trust any of the signatories with tending to my garden for a weekend.
I heartily second that emotion!!! Well stated.
And the democrats will invariably "consider all subsequent conservative Bush nominees "extraordinary circumstances."
Democratic officials said an unwritten aspect of the pact is that two nominees not named in the deal - Brett Kavanaugh and William J. Haynes - would not be confirmed and would be turned aside either at the committee level or on the floor.
All I heard was get rid of Lott! Get rid of Lott! Well they have Frist and I am off the GOP mailing list as of tonight. My money will better serve a Conservative think tank.
Some of us aren't bashing Frist. We are saying that this was his spotlight to show he could lead, as his moment for his bid for the presidential nomination in '08.
Frist is too nice to be president.
What makes a good doctor does not make a good president.
I'll say if for the last time: Frist's leadership vacuum led to this happening. If he'd made the sale to his senators, made promises, LED, this wouldn't have been an opportunity for the "moderates". He failed, again.
The more you learn about him, the more you will doubt this.
You may be right, and I'm not blind to some of his bull, but he served in the military and was taken prisoner, two things I've not done. I greatly respect that. I do think he calls 'em like he sees 'em--I just dont' see 'em like he does.
Who are the signatories? (Both parties.) Thanks.
We need to wait and see if the republicans in this agreement vote for or against the nominees.
But realise also that the agreement says that the democrats don't promise to vote FOR or AGAINST cloture.
The AGAINST is there for a reason. It may signal an unwritten part of the deal which will prevent a filibuster from being mounted. Note also that the republican part of the agreement alludes to more than the letter of the agreement in promising to not vote for the nuclear option. I presume that if the dems from this group go back on their promises that they couldn't write down, the republicans will renege on the deal.
EXCEPT THAT it is actually true that a good number of republicans did NOT want to vote for the nuclear option. We downplay the effect of this vote, but it was not simply a procedural matter. And even when someone first shoots a nuke at you, you still have to decide whether to accept it, or go for total destruction.
The "nuclear option" was NOT the best way to handle this. A rules change by majority vote at the beginning of the session would have worked.
If we pulled the nuclear option, the only way a second vacancy would occur on the Supreme Court would be a death.
No liberal would quit without at least the hope that the democrats in the senate would protect the seat from the conservatives.
And we know we can keep people alive, so long as they aren't living in Florida.
John McCain, Robert Byrd, John Warner, Mary Landrieu, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Ben Nelson, Mike Dewine, Lindsay Graham, Lincoln Chafee, Daniel Inouye; Ken Salazar, Pryor, Lieberman.
The only way to meet the challenge of this gang of Neville Chamberlins is to move for cloture on Saad at the earliest opportunity and force the issue once and for all.
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.