Posted on 02/05/2005 9:54:30 PM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
WASHINGTON -- Senate Republican leaders have decided to begin their use of the "nuclear option" -- forcing confirmation of President Bush's judicial nominations with a majority Senate vote -- on an African-American woman blocked by Democrats from a federal judgeship.
Associate Justice Janice Rogers Brown of the California Supreme Court was one of 16 Bush nominees for U.S. appellate courts whose confirmation was prevented by Democratic filibusters in the last Congress. With Republicans still short of the 60 senators needed to limit debate, the nuclear option will seek to confirm judges with a simple majority vote through parliamentary maneuvers.
Republican leaders considered waiting to use drastic tactics against a possible filibuster until Bush made his first Supreme Court nomination. They decided, however, to launch the offensive about a month from now by trying to confirm Brown.
Pure fantasy, with the current crop of repubs, there isn't even a spitball option.
Nuclear option, HAH!
I've been saying the same thing for years. Make them talk talk talk. Let them go for 14 days straight.. they'll break eventually, just like the Rats in Texas who fled to another state. Call their bluff, and they'll eventually cave.
"Make them talk talk talk. Let them go for 14 days straight.."
Amen! It is all good. It preserves the constitution; it raises C-Spans ratings, it will make the press, it is the way to go.
What DO the pubbies fear, that they haven't done this already? Or is it, as I've surmised; just old boy laziness?
it pains me to see nuclear too, as if it is a bad thing. You are correct, it should be emphasized at every turn, "the constitutional option."
They're just friggin' lazy!
It's called the nuclear option because if it applies to judicial confirmations it will apply to everything else too, stripping the minority of a lot of the influence they could otherwise wield with the threat to hold up legislation.
However, nobody should cry a tear for the Democrats. They have used and abused the filibuster more than anyone in history; they are the only ones who have ever made it an expected, routine response to a majority proposal.
In a representative republic, the majority of the legislature rules, and if the minority can't respect that and choose its battles carefully, rather than engage in an all-out assault against the elected majority goverment, then they deserve to get declawed.
Am I wrong on that?
There are two ways to implement the so-called "nuclear option":
...One is, as you suggest, to explicitly change the Senate's rules of procedure at the outset of the session, so that a simple majority is all that is necessary to fulfill the Senate's "advise & consent" role.
...The other is to call for a point of order once cloture has failed, asking the chair to rule as to whether the Senate's rules require a super-majority for approval of a Presidential nominee (the current rules don't state it either way, they are simply following the precedent established by Tom Daschle when he was Majority Leader).
In the latter case, the Chair (being Cheney) will rule that a super-majority is unnecessary, debate is thereby closed and that it is time to vote on the nominee. A Democrat will obviously challenge this ruling, a vote taken, and a majority will support the chair's ruling (assuming that the RINOs and mavericks don't all defect).
My guess is that Frist has chosen the second way to break the filibuster out of deference to the RINOs and mavericks. They probably insist on giving the Democrats a chance to do the honorable thing -- but they probably won't. And when they don't, the RINOs and mavericks will then cast their vote to stifle them.
"May use nuclear option..."
Do it! DO IT!
Is that what they've been carrying in those briefcases? (Do Bill Frist and Dennis Hastert have to push the buttons at the same time? Is there a launch code?)
I sure hope Novak has good information here. This is BIG!
(Cross-linking)
And their talking point should be:
The Constitution says the Senate should "advise and consent" not "slander and destroy".
TAXING REPUBLICAN
Indiana's newly elected Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels, who stunned conservatives nationwide by proposing a huge tax increase for upper income Hoosiers, will not be disinvited to the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington Feb. 17-19 because he actually never accepted the invitation.
Daniels was the only Republican governor invited to attend the prestigious event. Once the new governor raised taxes, there was no place for him at CPAC. However, since he never accepted, nothing need be done.
As President Bush's budget director, Daniels opposed all federal tax increases. In public, he contends that his state tax hike will be in effect for only a year before the state's budget shortfall is corrected. In private, he is delighted that, with the increase limited to incomes of more than $100,000, liberals cannot accuse him of balancing his budget on the backs of the poor.
This is the first I heard that Daniels is a scumbag. How disappointing....
he said he always WILL vote Democrat cause that is the way his momma taught him!
There are a lot of stupid people in the world, and some of them are Black. Some are union thugs, some are college professors. 'Rats come in many models, but they all have these blind spots where rationality would serve them so much better than inbred bigotry.
Exactly! :-)
After observing the Dems confirmation of Gonzales as AG with little more than a whimper, this may not be necessary. If it is...go for it! The Constitution states a majority, and a majority it should be.
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.