Posted on 06/24/2003 9:16:53 AM PDT by NYC Republican
WASHINGTON A Senate committee with all its Democratic members absent voted to limit filibusters (search) of President Bush's judicial nominees (search) Tuesday, a move Republicans hope will usher future federal judges through the Senate faster, even if Democrats want to stop them.
Democrats oppose changing Senate filibuster rules for judicial nominees, but Republicans have a one-vote majority on the Senate Rules Committee (search) and expected to win Tuesday's committee vote in any case. Democrats are expected to fight the measure on the Senate floor.
The Rules Committee officially voted 10-0 for the measure, which would reduce the number of senators needed to force a vote on a judicial nominee with each successive vote until only a 51-member majority is needed.
Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota had another commitment he had to attend to, and Democrats did not organize a boycott of the vote, spokeswoman Ranit Schmelzer said.
Senate Rules Committee Chairman Trent Lott, R-Miss., noted that all 10 GOP members showed up for the morning vote.
"It's hard to get people to a meeting between 9:30 and 10," Lott said. "We got ours here. The others were going to come but didn't get here by the time we finished our work."
All nine Senate Democrats -- Daschle, ranking Rules Committee Democrat Chris Dodd of Connecticut, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, Dianne Feinstein of California, Charles Schumer of New York, John Breaux of Louisiana, Mark Dayton of Minnesota and Richard Durbin of Illinois -- missed the meeting.
"There's no mystery in what will happen with today's vote," said Schumer in a written statement. "But when it comes to the floor, I hope and believe that at least a few of my friends from across the aisle will see the light."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Come on dude, if it was easy anybody could do it. Think of it, a new career as a prognosticator and power broker.
I would like for the FBI files to be made public.
What are the Republicans afraid of?
...who will either rule for Republicans or be replaced with a new parliamentarian who is more favorable to them. They could do that.
Actually, Ashcroft asked him to clean out his desk. He's been gone for two years. He's referred to as former asst. AG for civil rights in this article.
What makes you think the SC will even hear the case? They could cite the separation clause if they wanted to. And besides, FDR won his battle with the SC. Justice Roberts caved. And Hughes, of all people, actually applauded this.
My post 229 is also in disagreement. I said the Centcom maxim of "at a time and place of our choosing" was being followed. Reagan Man doesn't think the administration has that kind of disipline.
My basic thought was the judicial battle was delayed during the war when I would have been unnoticed. That was battle management as you have suggested.
Don't be puting words in my mouth. This has nothing to do with disipline.
Getting Bush`s court nominees through the process and appointed is a major priority for conservatives and that process shouldn't be put off because the US went to war in Iraq. That is a lame excuse in my opinion.
>>>You wait until you are forced to do battle before you do so.
>>>However in time of war it is not.
Both of these statements show an inadequte understanding of American politics. You don't wait to engage your political opponent on such a critical issue as Supreme Court nominees because we're at war. Republicans can handle both issues at the same time.
If you're both old enough to remember the VietNam War, then you'd also remember that the Democrat majority in the Congress lead by LBJ, didn't wait to push through their Great Society programs, because the US was engaged in military conflict.
The Founding Fathers didn't put aside their internal politics, because they were engaged in a battle for independence from the King of England.
Get real.
This illustrates the point. It is not "80 something, W is not LBJ, and Republicans are not Democrats. Precedent following is not the way to lead. That is the lawyerly, clinton way. What we are currently seeing is the new era and new ways. The old solutions are not solutions. W throws out the old insoluable problems and creates new problems that can be solved.
>>>W is not LBJ, and Republicans are not Democrats.
American politics don't change from decade to decade, or from century to century. In fact, politics has been part of human nature --- human relations and human behavior --- since civilized society started.
I admire and respect PresBush, however, he hasn't come up with anything new in the way of political gamesmanship. Bush was a student and close friend of the legendary GOP consultant, the late Lee Atwater. Bush has thrown together tried and true methods to create his own personal style, but there's nothing revolutionary going on here.
Bush and his political partner, Karl Rove have taken TR's big stick philosophy, Clinton's triangulation method, along with Reagan's tax cut policy, high moral clarity, strong leadership, integrity and trust to build an agenda that appeals to a wide range across the entire political spectrum.
PresBush is an astute politician, but he should of had his "man" in the Senate, Bill Frist, pressing the issue of his judicial nominees, war or no war!
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.