Senate Ends Marathon Debate, Stops Bush Nominee

Reuters ^ | 11-14-03

[JohnnyZ]

This is what ticks me off: We have the procedural "nuclear option". . . . Even after the Trent Lott Era, the 'Pubs still can't find a set.

In order to use that option, we'd need at least 49 Republican senators with balls, plus Zell and Cheney. There are a lot of senators who want to go for it but they're at the mercy of the wimps in the middle.

[bandleader]

The majority(under the leadership? of Bill Frist)has proved again what El Rushbo said long ago.The Republicans don't know what to do when they are in the majority!!They are played for FOOLS by The DemonRats!!!!!!!!!

[Mr. Bird]

That's just the point. We have GOP Senators opposing the nuke option for fear of future use. The Dems aren't blocking its use, the Republicans are. The Democrats will have no such reservations when the tables are turned.

[bandleader]

It's time to"Go Nuclear"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Coop]

They are played for FOOLS by The DemonRats!!!!!!!!!

So tell us what you'd do, Professor.

[Coop]

But you said they have the nuclear option, and they really don't since the votes aren't there.

[bandleader]

No,they are not(technically)fillibustering these nominations!They have pulled off a Senate Rules Change requiring a super majority(more than 60 votes)to bring a candidate on the floor for an up/down vote.They are in TOTAL violation of The United States Constitution!!If The Republicans were to get really tough,they would ask The Parliamentarian of the Senate to step in and rule on the legality of The DemonRats!!!!!!!!

[Jim Noble]

We have GOP Senators opposing the nuke option for fear of future use

Wrong.

The turncoat GOP Senators do not want Bush's nominees to come up for a vote, because if they do, they will have to vote for them or pay the price.

the Senate has a +10 or +12 strongly proabortion majority, it includes Republicans, and they don't want to openly defy Bush.

Defying Frist in the GOP caucus is a lot cheaper.

[Capitalism2003]

Frist needs to play tough now...absolutely NO compromise...NO bills that the democrats want will make it to the floor...NONE of their ammendments will be passed...IT's war.

[new cruelty]

Going back a few years, they could have started by confirming an impeachment.

[MamaLucci]

"You're probably thinking of the compromise Frist wanted to introduce, where filibusters could be mounted, but the votes needed to break the filibuster would decrease after each vote."


Probably.
It is HIGHLY aggravating, but I'm not sure what more the GOP senators, given the current makeup, can do. I heard more than one senator state that this will definitely be used against the dems in the upcoming election. If done correctly, this could be effective, ie: highlighting recent rulings by liberal judges that go against public opinion, and showing how the libs in the senate want to stack the courts with even MORE of these judges, while denying President Bush his constitutional right to choose judges for the federal bench. I will withhold judgement of the pubbies until then.

[Congressman Billybob]

Nope, the number required to change the Senate Rules does not decrease with each vote. The Senate Rules stay in effect from Session to Session of Congress unless 2/3rds of the Senators vote to change them. (There is an interlocking set of Catch 22's present in the Rules of the Senate.)

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, " 'Preserving' the Constitution by Spitting on It," discussion thread. IF YOU WANT A FREEPER IN CONGRESS, CLICK HERE.

[MamaLucci]

Thanks. Please comment on what you would advise the GOP Senators to do at this point. Do you still think they should choose the so called nuclear option?

[MamaLucci]

Correction:

I will TRY MY BEST to withhold judgement of the pubbies until then. :)

[Coop]

Going back a few years, they could have started by confirming an impeachment.

I agree they should have, but that was the fault of the 45 Dem senators. Granted a few spineless leaders made the "trial" into a sham, but that was not the main problem.

This is a different issue, however.

[new cruelty]

Yes, it is a different issue.

I may not fully agree that the Senate GOP are spineless wimps incapable of showing any form of leadership, but I can understand the frustration some people here are expressing.

You asked a couple of others what they would do to correct this problem. I doubt they are ready with an viable answer. However, I do not see their comments as stating they could do a better job. I see them as a call or wish for stronger leadership.

While certain opportunities to produce a strong leader have passed (e.g. impeachment), I think the potential for leadership exists within this current bunch.

[Coop]

However, I do not see their comments as stating they could do a better job. I see them as a call or wish for stronger leadership.

The reason I ask for solutions instead of criticism is because I've found in most cases they don't really understand what's involved. For instance, so many yell "Do a 24/7 filibuster! That'll solve the problem!"

But they have no idea what's really involved with this effort, including the limitations and risks.

[Congressman Billybob]

The window of opportunity for the "nuclear option" has closed. It was only possible while the judicial nominations were on the floor. That's because it depended on a Senator making a Point of Order that a voting requirement more than a simple majority was unconstitutional.

Apparently, the nuclear option was not employed because too many Republican Senators went squish, and would not commit to voting to uphold a ruling from the Chair on the majority vote issue. Don't know at this point which Republican Senators went squish, but it was obviously more than the usual suspects, Snowe (R?-Maine) and Chaffe (R?-Rhode Island).

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, " 'Preserving' the Constitution by Spitting on It," discussion thread. IF YOU WANT A FREEPER IN CONGRESS, CLICK HERE.

[alnick]

I agree. The only way this will be worthwhile is if the Republicans now use the 40 hour debate (or whatever it was) as political justification to change the Senate rules.

I suspect that's the plan.

[alnick]

I don't think this will fit in with Bush's "new tone" policy. He will leave it up to the individual candidates to fight this battle and I think he will be AWOL.

He used it effectively in 2002. I think we'll see a bloodbath for the dems in '04, and I think that Bush and the various senatorial candidates will use the judicial issue again.