Posted on 11/03/2005 4:19:12 AM PST by psychopuppy
By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - A group of centrist senators who halted a previous filibuster fight is making plans for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, but at least two of the group's Republicans say their decision is already made: no filibuster. ADVERTISEMENT
"I don't believe that, with all sincerity, I could let that happen," Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), R-S.C., a member of the so-called Gang of 14, said after meeting with the federal appeals court judge whom President Bush nominated to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Graham and Sen. Mike DeWine (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio, were taking their anti-filibuster message to the other Senate centrists at a meeting Thursday. But the group's Democrats were urging them to withhold judgment, saying Alito has been the nominee only since Monday.
The defection of even two members of the group, which decided earlier in the year to support filibusters only in "extraordinary circumstances," would virtually ensure that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., would win a filibuster showdown.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Apparently Chris Matthews has predicted a filibuster when he was on the Today show this morning. He said the Gang of 14 is breaking up and has no sway in the matter. He has it backwards, the Gang of 14 would need to hold together for a successful filibuster.
Perhaps Graham and DeWine have heard back from their constituents? The people they were sent to serve?
Rush said as much the other day... DeWine's kid lost his election bid... apparently that spoke volumes
Perhaps the flooding of fax/phone calls to their office had something to do with it..
Great news..
Alito is IN...
Well..maybe not IN but at least guaranteed a vote..which is good enough for me..
I for one, am looking forward to the hearings
Succinctly put. That's the truth.
However, there are RINOs who aren't in the Gang of 14, and at present count, I think we need three more RINOs to commit against the filibusters before we can say it's a lock.
But I came up with that count by scanning the alphabetical list of Senators, and counting in my head. I might've miscounted.
I'll be on the road today, but maybe someone else could do a count and see if I'm accurate or not.
Does he think the Dems will try it anyways forcing the GOP to go nuclear?
Let me be more precise: There are Repub senators who are either RINOs or who have expressed reservations about removing the option of judicial filibusters, and who are not members of the Gang of 14.
I think that's correct.
The Gang of 14 will stick together because they control the balance of power on so called controversial judicial nominations. Also, Landrieu, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson and Robert Byrd are all up for re-election, and they all come from conservative Red States whose voters would not be happy with a filibuster.
IMHO, it is POSSIBLE that Alito would get 1 or 2 NO VOTES on the nomination.. however the attempt to fillibuster WOULD result in the nuclear option being invoked...
Still a little early to count the votes (waiting for hearings)
I will believe it when I see it.
I hope they go nuclear/constitutional sooner than later.
Two GOP senators announce that they will not support a filibuster, and the news reports that the gang of 14 is "breaking up"? They would be breaking up only if some of the others support a filibuster.
I guess, then, that we can infer that supporting a filibuster is sticking together but opposing it is breaking up.
No doubt they will stick together, however it appears that not in the case of "Alito"...
If an "extreme" nomminee comes before the senate (...and each of the 14 define extreme differently) then the gang of 14 will stop the nuclear option..
It appears that at least 2 of the GOP gang of 7 (remember it doesn't happen without 7 PUBBIES), have expressed the opinion that Judge Alito DOES NOT meet their definition of "extreme".. Which means that 2 OTHER PUBBIES would need to define Judge Alito as "extreme" at support the DIMS attempt to filibuster..... VERY UNLIKELY...
What about all these reports of "pro-choice" and other "moderate" rulings by Alito? Can someone set my mind at rest about that?
Wait for hearings... All this and more will be addressed
The reason I disagree is this: As soon as it becomes clear that the Repubs have 50 + 1 (Cheney) sure votes against the filibustering, the Dims will call the Alito filibuster off, and Alito will sail through.
Until that time, some of the Dims will continue to threaten it.
There are two places where the gang plays. One is on withholding enough votes so that the 60 vote cloture hurdle is not crossed, the other is to obtain a 50 vote agreement that cloture abuse in the context of nominations is contrary to the balance of powers implied by the Constitution.
Those waypoints are couched in the phrase "extraordinary circumstance," coined by the gang of 14. Once each player in the gang renders an opinion as to whether or not Alito is within the "extraordinary circumstance" sphere, the playout of the nomination is clarified.
I suspect today's meeting of the gang of 14 will NOT add clarity. THey will emerge with the "news" that each of them is free to decide "extraordinary circumstance" on his or her own. Dewine and Graham have consistently, since May, held that "extraordinary circumstance" represents a nomination that is beyond the pale, I see that as a judge that the Senator would vote to impeach - better to nip it in the bud than admit the judge to the office.
Salazar is making noises that Alito may represent extraordinary circunmstances, because he may be an ideologue. I am pretty sure that Snowe and Collins will caucus with the DEMs on this - so the situation is similar to the Circuit Court impasse of May, except the stakes are higher. The DEMs would be able to sustain refusal to vote on the nominee - it's too visible. The public understands that fairness requires the nominee to be given an up or down vote.
Filibuster is difficult when you have press coverage. The previous nominees weren't given much coverage because they were lower court judges. I don't see a filibuster getting any better press than the Anita Hill debacle, which is to say, it will not go over well.
The central problem with filibusters is that they appear to the public to be a sore loser's tool, a whiney hissy fit when one is clearly beaten. Filibusters were designed to limit the actions taken by the legislative branch, because the Founder's feared an active government more than a passive one, but they feel like cheating to the public.
REMEMBER a true Constitutionalist/Originalist Judge as it appears so far that Judge Alito is... would consider USSC precedent when ruling as a "lower court" judge.... even if he believes the USSC has wrongly decided a case, as a lower court constitutionalist/Originalist judge he would need to factor that "wrong decision" into his opinion......BUT..and a very BIG BUT...
As a USSC JUSTICE, he would NOT be bound by the courts prior "WRONG DECISIONS"....
Watch for Spector and other PRO-DEATH Pubbies to use the term "Super Precedent" and "Super-Duper Precedent" and "Super-Duper-Duper Precedent" WHATEVER THAT MEANS... to get Alito to commit to following the courts prior "WRONG DECISIONS" when considering future cases.. if Alito takes that bait... I for one will OPPOSE him....
Again, Looking forward to the hearings...
FReegards,
David
free dixie,sw
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.