Posted on 10/31/2005 8:15:27 AM PST by neverdem
That's his job.
But Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, fired back Sunday, saying that if the Democrats staged a filibuster against Judge Alito or Judge Luttig because of their conservatism, "the filibuster will not stand."
--snip--
The Republicans have a majority of 55 senators. If three or more Democrats break from the group to support a filibuster, Mr. Graham and Mr. DeWine could give the Republicans enough votes to force the rule change.
What do you think the above sentences mean?
My guess is that he'll pass...marginally. There will be a few Democrats supporting him, which would get the vote up to about 62. They need to hope all Republicans support him...
If it is even necessary...I think the filibuster can be broken on votes. It will take 5 crossover Democrats to do so.
A Democrat filibuster is a dead issue - - won't happen.
Seven Democrats in the "Gang of 14" promised not to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee.
When Graham and DeWine agreed to enter the scheme (the "Gang of 14" deal) to trick the rats, they knew full well that they were going to take a hit from conservatives who were slow to figure it all out. And they did indeed take a beating, at least for awhile.
(Curiously, there are still some conservatives who haven't figured it out, even after Owens, Brown, Pryor and others have been confirmed, and even after it has been explained that Frist STILL has his finger hovering over "the nuclear button" and he can push it any time he needs to.)
Now, thanks to the "extraordinary circumstances" language of "the deal", the rats are completely boxed in, and our nervous "blue state" GOP Senators have the cover they need to vote nuclear if and when the time comes.
(It still boggles my mind that the Democrats walked right into the "Gang of 14" trap. I can hardly stop smiling!)
The Republicans needed to get a couple of ringers into the "Gang of 14" in order for the scheme to work, and it was Graham and DeWine who stepped up - - they are heroes. The quote from Lindsey Graham in this NY Times report ("The filibuster will not stand.") is no surprise at all.
The scheme was needed in the first place because Frist was not certain that he had the fifty Senate votes needed (plus Cheney) to "go nuclear" and he figured that doing the "deal" was simply a superior strategy from a public relations point of view - - with "the deal", the liberal press couldn't accuse the Republicans of "running roughshod over the Constitution", being "bullies", doing "incalculable damage to Constitution", "destroying Senate tradition", etc.
The likelihood of getting those kinds of soundbites from the liberal press made a few of the "blue state" Republican nervous. But now they have considerably less to fear, because NOW they got some COVER. See, if the rats filibuster ANY qualified nominee the Republicans can throw up their hands and claim that the Democrats have gone back on their word. "We are left no choice in the face of broken promises by the Democrats but to change the filibuster rules at this time."
I happen to believe that "the deal" was a masterpiece of political ingenuity that could only have been dreamed up by the ghost of Lee Atwater over breakfast with Karl Rove. And it could not have happened without the willing participation of Graham and DeWine. It is also likely that Warner would support "going nuclear", and others who signed onto "the deal" will certainly hold their seven Democrat counterparts' feet to the fire and urge them to keep their promise.
SUMMARY:
As a result of "the deal", the rats cannot sustain a filibuster because seven of them have promised not to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee except under "extrordinary circumstances". (Simply being a conservative does not meet the criteria of "extrordinary circumstances".) IF five of the seven Democrats in the "Gang of Fourteen" are forced by leadership to break their promise and support a filibuster, then the GOP can unabashedly (thanks to the cover provided by "the deal") exercise their "nuclear" option.
And so any talk of a filibuster is "bluster".
Regards,
LH
(NOTE: The only monkey wrench the GOP faces is the threat that the rats have more dirt on the RINOs than the GOP has.)
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but they need 60 votes to stop debate under current rules. That means they need 41 to continue the filibuster. Five dem defectors, without any pubbies being contrary, is the goal without a rule change, i.e. the Constitutional option.
You are right.
I can't see them mounting a filibuster and if they do we pick up Senate seats in 2006 and nuke em to boot.
If they try the fillibuster and they're successful, POTUS will recess appoint.
I'm sure the liberal Democrats will try...
<<<<
Nomination Likely to Please G.O.P., but Not Some Democrats
>>>>
Mr President, your job is to provide leadership and to do the right and constitutional thing, not to please people.
Which is another way of saying -- SO WHAT if some Dems are unhappy ? You can't please everyone.
Instead of worrying about our RINO's let the Dems worry about their red state Democrats, especially the ones up for reelection in 2006
I could see Graham volunteering for such a tactic. I don't know about DeWine. Cross your fingers! Today's a day for superstition.
Schumer is a damned hypocrit, his staff members stole the social security number of Michael Steele, Lt. Governor of Maryland. Mr. Steele is a conservative, campaigning for senate,
AND "horrors" he is black! they obtained his credit report illegally.
Tony Snow has Schumer's telephone number on his web site to call his office for YOUR free credit report.
"Trap"? I fail to see how this was a "trap" for the Democrats. The agreement says that the Democrats will not fillibuster unless under "extraordinary" circumstances--which they are free to define. On the other hand, the Republicans in the Gang of 14 have agreed not to accede to the rule change. If the Democrats do filibuster and the Republicans change the rules, the Democrats will start the mantra that the Republicans had been unfaithful to the agreement (please remember, truth is irrelevant to these people). In short, the Democrats have made no promise, but they have gotten something they can twist into a promise from the Republicans promising not to break the filibuster with a rule change. So I completely disagree with you when you say that Now, thanks to the "extraordinary circumstances" language of "the deal", the rats are completely boxed in,. Rather, I see it the opposite way. The "extraordinary circumstances" language of "the deal" gives the Democrats all to much latitude. There is absolutley nothing in the deal which comes anywhere close to defining "extraordinary circumstances". At the end of the day, I wonder how Republicans could have been so stupid as to agree to this travesty.
For the reasons above, I do not believe that Frist will attempt the "Constitutional Option" even in the case of a filibuster. On the other hand, I am not sure that the Democrats will try a filibuster. The Democrats may find that, even if they are not barred from filibustering, that the Republicans will be able to raise enough pressure on them from their constituencies (by making the argument that Alito's nomination is not "extraordinary") that they will not be able to mantain the filibuster and their seats.
Another remark to those who have been pushing the "Constitutional/Nuclear Option": be careful what you wish for. Yes, this rule may help in the here and now, but remember a couple of things: the rules are anything but permanent and the Democrats could readily double-cross you with another rule change, and secondly that there may very well come the day when someone like Clinton comes along and hands us a nominee we truly need to filibuster, but no longer have the tools to do it (nor any way of attaining them before another midterm election).
Executive Summary: The "compromise" is lowsy for Republicans without significant harm done to the Democrats. Yet, despite this, it remains up in the air as to whether or not the Democrats will filibuster and what will happen if they do.
Steele is a Republican and conservative for the state of Maryland (where Communism has lease), but anything but a true conservative. Nonetheless, your overall point is quite true.
LOL!
He can't. O'Connor specified that her resignation is effective when her replacement is confirmed. Until then, there is no vacancy. It was clever of her to do it that way because it prevents a recess appointment.
Graham is really picking it up with these judicial hearings.
I noticed that...McCain also spoke in favor of Alito.
The agreement allows the Repubs to define extraordinary circumstances for themselves. It doesn't allow RATs to define it for everyone.
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.