Posted on 05/24/2005 2:55:11 PM PDT by Dems_R_Losers
News From The Congressional Black Caucus
U.S. Rep. Melvin L. Watt (D-NC)
www.congressionalblackcaucus.net
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Paul A. Brathwaite
May 24, 2005
(202) 226-9776
Congressional Black Caucus Condemns Senate Filibuster "Deal"
Members call on all Senators to Defeat Brown and Pryor
Washington, D.C. - After reviewing the Senate filibuster "deal" agreed to by fourteen U.S. Senators, U.S. Rep. Melvin L. Watt (D-N.C.) issued the following statement on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus:
"The Congressional Black Caucus strongly opposes the "deal" that trades judges who oppose our civil rights for a temporary filibuster ceasefire. This deal is more of a capitulation than a compromise. Two of the three judges in the agreed to in the "deal", Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor, have documented histories of opposing the rights of African Americans and of hostility to the broad mainstream of law and rights enacted by the Congress over the past 75 years. The only way to make a bad deal worse would be for these judges to succeed in getting the 51 percent of the Senate votes they will need for confirmation. Even under the terms of this deal, these nominees can go on the bench only if they get the majority of the Senate to approve them. We will be looking closely at the votes as they occur and expect any Senator who seeks our support and the support of our constituents to reject the judges who have rejected the obligation to protect our rights."
###
I wonder if these dopes would have opposed curbing the filibuster when Sheets Byrd and Al Gore, Sr., were using it to stifle civil rights legislation in the early '60s.
You missed my point.
This deal was supposed to restore civility and peace, so we were told. If this is indication the grassroots of the Dems is furious, as are we. We're back to where we were and this battle starts all over again but escalates. If they had just voted it could have been settled. The anger wouldn't die away, but there would be resolution. these fools didn't bring reolsution to us or the Left. Only postponed it like the nitwits they are.
The CBC is the most rabid leftist group. they should get lost....
You can say that again. Unbelievable!
Just that I guess these people are never going to forgive Janice Rogers Brown for writing the majority opinion that upheld Proposition 209 in California. A lot of damn gall she had to find a government program in which contracts were tied to race and gender impermissible given that California voters had banned such preferences by referendum.
She did not impose any personal opinion. She merely upheld the clear intent of the voters. Must be why she is so reviled.
What we have now is a de facto nuclear option. Sen Graham said as much on the radio today. He said Brown, Pryor and Owen are all in. All pending nominees will get votes, but one is likely to go down to defeat on a bipartisan basis (he didn't say who - but probably Saad).
Without this deal, we could have exercised the constitutional option and not had this problem in the future for all judicial nominees. Then cloture would be 51 votes and not the current 60.
And this statement is based on .... ?? There were 1000s upon 1000s of articles on this mess, and no one really knew if the votes were there, if Frist forced the issue.
A total waste of US air space...
I don't even care if some of them are defeated under that rule. That's the Senate's role.
As long as the filibuster is no longer a weapon, I could not care less how that happened.
I think the White Caucus ought to go ahead and vote for her today just to tic them off. Oh, wait--there is no white causcus.
That's the theory. After being stabbed in the back by the Gang of Seven, why should Frist abide by an agreement between 14 senators and act when it is violated? Frist had nothing to do with setting the terms and conditions. It's the tail wagging the dog.
I believe he had the votes. Frist was prepared to trigger the option, which indicates to me that he had the votes. The agreement gave cover to those GOP senators who didn't want to go on the record one way or another. We would have found out if he had the votes or not.
Well, what can you expect out of a committee headed by a Ku Kluxer anyway!
I don't quite understand your comments re what I said. The filibuster still exists for judicial nominees and it still requires 60 votes for cloture, which is tantamount to requiring 60 votes for confirmation.
Clarence Thomas was confirmed on a 52 to 48 vote. 60 votes are not required if the filibuster is not being used.
So a minority of 14 senators are dictating to the remaining 86? Now the CBC is complaining that a minority coup took place. What ever happened to the rights of the majority?
Understood. I know it only takes a simple majority for confirmation. But unless there is a rule change, the filibuster could be used against a judicial nominee. Aside from the Fortas nomination to be Chief Justice, the filibuster has not been used until the Dems started using it in the last Congress. They broke a precedent of 214 years.
If it takes 60 votes to get cloture, the next Clarence Thomas will be filibustered or the threat of a filibuster used. He/she will never get an up or down vote. The Dems are using the threat of filibuster as a deterrent on the selection of judges they don't like.
We need to see if they try to impose it again on other nominees that reach the floor.
It exists in theory, but if they're going to vote 81-15 for cloture, it doesn't exist as a meaningful threat.
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.