Posted on 05/24/2005 7:01:47 PM PDT by Evolution
SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER: Yeah, I do. And the agreement is pretty clear. It says that the nuclear option is off the table. Sen. Frist may be for it. But the agreement that the 14 signed said the nuclear option is off. It does say that filibustering will be only in extraordinary circumstances.
But let me read you the next clause which people have forgotten. "And each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist." So that will be up to the conscience of each individual member, but the nuclear option, I think is gone. Sen. Reid has said it. Everyone else has said it. And that was the whole thing that brought the agreement together. And, again, I want to pat Ben Nelson on the back. He doesn't have the same views on judges as I do, but he knew how important it was to get the nuclear option off the table.
Advice and consent GWEN IFILL: Let's go back to Sen. Nelson because as one of the signatories on this agreement I'm curious about what you think would happen if there were a severely disputed Supreme Court nominee. Would your agreement -- the one that we forged out over all these secret meetings and not-so-secret meetings of the last week or so, will it be able to hold?
SEN. BEN NELSON: Well, I think so. I think if we get a nominee that is very controversial, it starts to raise questions about extraordinary circumstances, and you end up with five members of the Democratic side who feel that they have to filibuster; before that all happens you'll have a lot of consultation with members on the other side to make sure that there is agreement, that there's an understanding of why each individual senator would find this particular nominee to be extraordinary -- that, I think is -- or the circumstances behind and around that nominee extraordinary. So I think it's self-enforcing in a very positive way. This is built on trust. We do trust one another. And I think there can be, as I think Sen. Sessions said, a spilling out of... or a spilling over of the... of this trust and this comity and the ability to work together can help us in some other areas as well. But if we can't get the Senate back to mutual trust, we have other problems that may be in some respects greater than this one.
GWEN IFILL: Sen. Chafee, are you as optimistic as your cohort there?
SEN. LINCOLN CHAFEE: Well, I think a key part of the agreement is to stress the advice part of the Constitution that said advice and consent. And the president has always gotten the consent of the Senate. We're urging him now to exercise the advice part of it. I think if he does that, then we can get a nominee or nominees to these courts, a nominee to the Supreme Court that could get 90 votes. I mean that's the ideal. Justice Scalia got over 90 votes. Both of President Clinton's nominees I believe Ginsberg and Breyer got over 90 votes so that's the goal.
SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER: Yes. I think, Gwen, that's a really important point that has not been stressed but is vital to this agreement. And that is that the president should consult. President Clinton regularly consulted with Republicans. In fact it was Sen. Hatch, the Republican leader of the Judiciary Committee, who suggested Justice Breyer's name. President Bush has not consulted with us on the major court of appeals nominees at all. And if he would start consulting with this group of 14, with the Republican leader which he may consult with now, I don't know, but with the Democratic leadership, we could avoid these kinds of situations. So the advice part of this agreement is really crucial, and I hope the president will begin consulting. He hasn't done it up to now.
GWEN IFILL: Let me give Sen. Sessions an opportunity to respond to that.
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS: Well, President Bush does consult on judicial appointments but when you have a circuit maybe with fifteen judges and sixteen or eighteen senators, they may not consult with every single one on each appointment.
SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER: I don't think he consults with any Democrats.
GWEN IFILL: Sen. Schumer.
SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER: I don't think he consults with a single Democrat on the Judiciary Committee on -
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS: He consults with the senators in their states on nominees of judges in their states. He does that regularly. And President Clinton was not so good about that either. But presidents are doing a better job and I think he should consult and I believe he does. I believe that this agreement clearly is such that if a... the members who signed the agreement say, say the Republicans, believe that a new filibuster is undertaken that's not in good faith they have said they will vote to support the constitutional option. It is not off the table.
GWEN IFILL: And that will have to be the last word. Thank you all very much, senators.
The GOP gave up their option to use the constitutional option, and gave the Dems the right to demand that Bush consults with THEM FIRST!
So we got only 3 conservatives on the court at the price of giving up on ALL OTHER JUDGES including SCOTUS nominees.
You know that those 7 RINO traitors will never go along with the constitutional option and have basically made Harry Reid the new Majority leader of the Senate.
"Kool" down...
Expect some great surprises from Frist on the floor tomorrow... its already known in the press he's gonna challenge this. The show ain't over until the Hillary sings.
Great Post!
We got hosed by McLunatic! get on the phone and call!! I did today and I happily report to being very "discordant"!!
I don't recall President Bush signing on to this agreement.
Schumer is such a putz.
I agree that they are indeed traitors, but I disagree that they will not support the constitutional option if the Democrats renege on the agreement. I should say WHEN the Democrats renege, becasue it is only a matter of time.
Its not dead because Schumer says it dead.
Graham and DeWine will leave the agreement if the Democrats filibuster a well qualified nominee.
Perhaps you didn't read the penultimate paragraph.
I like the way you think.
let us know when that happens. even if it does, watch two others take their place.
Graham will do what Graham thinks is good for Graham.
After two weeks of busy signals, I reached the office of Senator John McCain, Democrat from the Dark Side, today.
The male staffer listened courteously and patiently while I gave him the long version.
In sum, we will never support the presidential aspirations of this psychopathic traitor.
Now to fax further words of encouragement to Frist and Allen.
Foolishness! - My God, because Harry Reid and Chuck-boy say this is so....you think it is so??? - It is not! - If the DEM's filibuster a SCOUTS nominee....you just watch how quickly the Nuclear option will come back out!!
The DEM's are just trying to position themselves as if they are warning GWB to not nominate a true conservative...they are hoping to push his hand....But it won't work!!
And when GWB nominates a judge for the SCOUT...he WILL be confirmed!!.
So it is you that needs to cowboy up and stop drinking the crying kool-aid!!
My God, on the whole the Nation is by far heading in a better direction under GWB (and from the GOP leadership in the Congress).
We are going to get all but two of our held up judges confirmed...AND GWB will get his SCOUT nominee's confirmed!!...so just settle down!....Rove and GWB have it all under control.
I have been waiting over 4 years and have yet to see the GOP act the way they should act, and time is running out.
To: BigunI just copied the following directly form Senator Frist's website. Thought you might enjoy reading it.May 24th, 2005
"Mr. President, though I am not a party to the memorandum of understanding signed last night by 14 of my colleagues, I have had the opportunity to further review the agreement in more detail. I believe the memorandum of understanding makes modest progress, but falls far short, of guaranteeing up or down votes on judicial nominees. It needs to be carefully monitored and executed in good faith.
Let me briefly share my thoughts on the understanding reached last night and my expectations going forward.
First, the memorandum of understanding begins to break the partisan obstruction of the past two years and guarantee fair up or down votes on several judicial nominees. Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and William Pryor all will receive the courtesy and fairness of up or down votes. I will continue to fight for other qualified nominees who have been waiting for votes and deserve the same courtesy and fairness.
Second, the agreement, if followed in good faith, will make filibusters of judicial nominees in the future, including Supreme Court nominees, almost impossible.
Third, let me be very clear: the Constitutional option remains on the table. I will not hesitate to use it if necessary. It has been and continues to be a last resort. My goal is restoring the principle of fair up or down votes on judicial nominees. However, if the minority again acts in bad faith – if they resume their campaign of routine judicial obstruction – I will ask all 100 senators to decide whether judicial nominees deserve fair up-or-down votes.
So let us begin today to execute this memorandum of understanding. This afternoon, I expect the Senate to confirm Priscilla Owen and by the end of the week to process Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor. We will work with the Minority Leader, the Judiciary Committee and other Senators to move forward expeditiously on other nominees, including those from the Sixth Circuit and Tom Griffith.
This has been a very significant debate. By exposing the injustice of judicial obstruction in the last Congress, we have made progress on restoring a core Constitutional principle: all judicial nominees deserve fair up or down votes. I hope that progress continues."
To: Raycpa; AllJust arrived in my email from Bill Frist's office:
____________________________________________________
As promised, an update on the judicial nominee front ...
Last night, an arrangement was reached by fourteen of my colleagues. I was not a party to it, and here's why...
I do not agree with it because it does not get the job done of ensuring fair, up or down votes on all judicial nominees sent to the Senate by the President.
It is my firm belief that--on principle--all judicial nominees deserve an up or down vote on the floor of the United States Senate.
The new understanding, if followed in good faith, affirms my principle to some extent. It marks some break in the partisan obstruction of the past two years, and ensures that seven outstanding jurists-including Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor--will get the fair up or down votes they have long deserved.
But it does not grant fairness to all other jurists. It still allows mindless filibusters to be triggered at the whim of a minority more interested in obstruction than progress.
And that is a shame.
So make no mistake, the Constitutional Option remains on the table. If the minority again acts in bad faith--if they resume their campaign of mindless judicial obstruction--I will NOT hesitate to call it to a vote.
Not for a second.
For too long on judicial nominees, the filibuster was abused to facilitate partisanship, and subvert principle.
We have exposed the injustice of judicial obstruction in the last Congress, and advanced the core Constitutional principle that all judicial nominees deserve a fair up or down vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
So the Senate will begin to execute this arrangement, with a vote up or down on Priscilla Owen. Giving up their minority-party led obstructionism, the Senate invoked cloture on her today by a vote of 81-18. Priscilla Owen--after four years, two weeks and two days--will finally receive the fair, up or down vote she deserves.
And, mark my words, more judges like her will follow in the days ahead. I hope the minority will respect the will of the majority, and give judges the courtesy, the respect, of a fair, up or down vote.
Bill Frist
1,903 posted on 05/24/2005 3:57:44 PM CDT by EllaMinnow
These people are in absolute hysterics, and there is little use in reasoning with them.
What part of "face saving gesture" do they not understand? The Republican 7 Agreed No Nukes so long as the Dem 7 do not filibuster. It is a de facto nuke option.
Lindsey Graham has made that quite clear, but Freepers would rather believe Schumer's spin - it fits in with their desire to be "victims".
According to the deal that is up to each individual senator.
So according to the Dems and RINOS that means no Conservatives!
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.