2 GOP senators consider lawsuit to break filibuster

Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 11/14/2003 | Self

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

BMP for more to read.....

[Cboldt]

This is really a double edged sword. If the SCOTUS agrees with my interpretation, then a lame duck president could conceivably stack the courts by requesting that all the old dying judges that agree with his philosophy resign and allow the lame duck president to stack the courts with young ideolouges.

I'm not sure they would rule as you hypothesize, that all nominees must be addressed within that term. Even so, the Constitution permits the appointment of lower Officers without advice and consent, so the risk you describe is already Constitutionally present.

I agree with your point that the case would have merit. As a political matter, I think this is better settled without involving SCOTUS.

[Consort]

Let's see..... The purpose of filing Cloture is to end the debate. Yes? No? And the Democrats are filibustering by voting against invoking Cloture, thus prolonging the debate. Yes? No? And they are complaining because the debate is ongoing and won't end. Yes? No?

[metesky]

bttt

[lawdude]

"Your correct. It's all part of the "new tone" (barf). IMO he's being so non-confrontational that he won't even do what you suggest."

The problem with taking the 'high road' is that the rats shoot you from the gutter!

[WillRain]

He said:

"We are not oblidged to confirm every neanderthal Bush nominates" or words to that effect. He did not specify but the only logical inference is that he was speaking of the judges they were blocking.

It has not - YET - appeared on any news show (AFAIK) but my point is that right now the lib-media are trying there best to keep it out of the public eye and if it went to the SCOTUS it would be harder to bury thus putting the Dims in the position of embarrising themselves.

[deport]

Just musing...

The cloture rule didn't come into effect until 1917, I believe..... Thus the Senate in effect was operating under the premise until that time it took 100% of the Senators present and voting to bring debate to an end... Or is that a wrong premise on my part?

Thus in 1917 the cloture rule attempted to establish a number less than 100% [2/3rds] to allow for a vote... It was further amended to bring the number down to 3/5ths of the Senators...

It appears to me that a rule would have to be adopted to reduce either that number to a majority on judicial nominees or that some preset time limit made applicable to the debate on all judicial nominees.... Otherwise if the cloture item is eliminated then we are back to the original setup before 1917 if you assume that unlimited debate is the basis to which the Senate operates.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Keith in Iowa is absolutely right in that it is a political question textually committed to another branch; ergo, the S.Ct. will likely go nowhere near this case, even if it WAS brought by a party with standing...which brings us to our next, and more major hurdle:

Senators have no standing to bring this suit. If it is to be brought by anyone, it would need to be brought by the judge who was denied his seat. And even then, there is still a question as to whether he has standing, since it's not clear that he has a "right" to the spot on the bench.

Lawsuits go nowhere, fellas.

[deport]

Would not the President also have standing as it is he that is being denied the up down vote on a nominee he has submitted?

[Cboldt]

I resepctfully disagree with both you and Kieth in Iowa, that this is purely a political question.

Also, IMO, the person with the best standing is the President. The President has the power to nominate and appoint.

Finally, you'll note my statements that I don't know if the SCOTUS will take it (but there are arguments on both sides), and tht I think it best if this matter is settled without judicial involvment.

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

Question from a legal idiot. The Senate [supposedly] works for us, the people. Do We, the People of the United States, have any legal recourse in the courts to end this issue? In other words can we sue for lack of action?

Hell, if a woman can sue Coke for being "addicted" to Diet Coke, it seems logical (whoops, there I go again) that a case can be made on the issue of the Dems holding up a vote on an such an important issue.

[pctech]

There are two parties at fault here. President Bush is one for not using recess appointments like Clintoon did, and the republican powers at be in the US Senate for not pushing to get these appointments through when we all know damn well the democrats would stop at nothing to get their appts through.

[RatSlayer]

Yeah, I think he was one of them. Wasn't there also a gay ambassador that the Pubbies wouldn't confirm?

[gaspar]

That was Hormel of San Francisco. I believe Clinton gave him a recess appointment as ambassador to Luxembourg??

[RatSlayer]

Yeah, Hormel is the one I was thinking of. Good memory gaspar!