 AP Photo |
Posted on 04/16/2005 2:53:41 PM PDT by Jean S
Edited on 04/16/2005 2:54:27 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON - A looming power play by Senate Republican leaders to clamp down on filibusters against judicial nominees is a high-risk strategy. It could change the balance of power in the Senate, erode the rights of the minority party and backfire against Republicans in the long term.
|
The Senate is "not always going to be Republican," former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, the 1996 GOP presidential candidate, is reminding fellow Republicans. "Think down the road," he advises.
Dole is one of several former Senate majority leaders who have counseled a go-slow approach on the brink of a parliamentary war over Democratic filibusters — delaying tactics — against President Bush's judicial nominees.
The current majority leader, Sen. Bill Frist (news, bio, voting record), R-Tenn., and some other leading Republicans argue that the Constitution's "advice and consent" clause is under assault. Requiring any threshold greater than a majority vote in the 100-member Senate for confirmation is unconstitutional, they say.
It now takes 60 votes to shut down a filibuster. That is fine for legislation, but inappropriate for judicial nominations, Frist and his colleagues argue.
Frist soon may seek to declare that a judicial nominee needs only a 51-vote majority and cannot be subject to the 60-vote margin needed to stop a filibuster.
Some are calling this approach the "nuclear option," one sure to cause Democrats to retaliate and sour any semblance of a working relationship between the parties.
A likely 2008 presidential contender, Frist is under pressure to force a Senate showdown in the coming weeks. But not every Senate Republican is with him on the issue.
"Someday there will be a liberal Democrat president and a liberal Democrat Congress," Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., told MSNBC last week. "Do we want a bunch of liberal judges approved by the Senate of the United States with 51 votes if Democrats are in the majority?"
Upping the ante is Frist's planned taped message with Christian conservatives who portray Democrats as "against people of faith" for blocking Bush's nominees.
Further raising the temperature: Republicans who have criticized the federal judiciary over the Terri Schiavo feeding-tube case.
Democrats have promise to retaliate with maneuvers that could tie the Senate in knots. The Democrats' leader, Sen. Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) of Nevada, said a campaign by "radical Republicans" would overturn a 200-year tradition in the Senate and "stop the ability of senators from talking, from filibustering."
The skirmish is a precursor to an expected battle over a Supreme Court nominee.
Both parties have used filibusters over the years and both parties have been accused of violating the rules.
It has been a long time since filibusters were conducted by senators who spoke hour after hour in the full Senate. One masterful practitioner was the late Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C.
Now, for the most part, filibusters are merely threatened. Still, that usually is enough to trigger the filing of a motion, which requires 60 votes, to sharply limit debate. In practical, terms, little can get through the Senate without at least 60 votes.
Barring filibusters for judicial nominations "would be a serious blow to minority rights in the Senate. There has always been some form of extended debate, although from 1917 on there have been ways of closing it off," said Allan J. Lichtman, a political historian at American University.
In 1917, the Senate adopted a rule to cut off filibusters with a two-thirds vote of the chamber. The 67 vote requirement was reduced to the current 60 votes in 1975.
Sen. Robert C. Byrd (news, bio, voting record), D-W.Va., now sharply denounces Republican tactics to limit filibusters, even likening the tactics to those used by Adolf Hitler in his rise to power.
But when he was majority leader in 1977, Byrd joined forces with then-Vice President Walter Mondale in crushing a filibuster by two members of his own party — Sens. Howard Metzenbaum, D-Ohio, and James Abourezk, D-S.D. — on a proposal to deregulate natural gas prices.
With Mondale presiding, Byrd manipulated Senate rules to force hundreds of pending amendments — filed as a delaying tactic — to be ruled out of order. Byrd later won adoption of a rule change barring such "filibusters by amendment."
The White House insists publicly that it is keeping its distance from how the Senate conducts its business.
But Bush told newspaper editors last week: "I think my judges ought to get an up or down vote, period." And Vice President Dick Cheney, in his role as president of the Senate, has committed to break the tie in favor of ending judicial filibusters should a 50-50 vote occur.
___
EDITOR'S NOTE — Tom Raum has covered national and international news for The Associated Press since 1973.
That's right. And if we don't do it now, the 'Rats will most assuredly turn around and do it to us anyway, someday in the future.
Go back to shilling for Viagra, Bob.
Personally, I don't understand how filibusters are OK for Senate business, but not for judicial nominations. Wouldn't the Dems just filibuster something else so there wouldn't be judicial nominations?
Why don't they just change the Senate rules to guarantee a vote within 30 (or 60) days of getting a nomination, and automatically confirm it if the nomination is not acted on by that time?
---
They like to post this for some of the bigwig political hacks at AP. Like it adds credibility to his ranting. ;-)
"And if we don't do it now, the 'Rats will most assuredly turn around and do it to us anyway, someday in the future."
What gives you that idea? The rats have shown great 'comedy' in the past. =]
barf alert, please?
Someone should remind AP of the Whigs. That is where today's Democratic party is headed.
The strategy the republicans are using now doesn't seem to be terribly helpfull. The democrats have already brought everything to a halt so their threat to do so in the future doesn't mean a whole lot.
Exactly. This may be the dumbest straw man argument I've ever heard. If a simple majority can change the Senate Rules, then the Dems will change the rules once (if, hopefully) they get back into the majority. Or, the GOP can change them now and actually accomplish something. Either way, the Dems will take advantage of the Option--the only difference in the scenarios is if the GOP does as well.
Having won, he would know. [/sarcasm] When Dole (Republican) ran for the President,
he was forced (by the Democrats and their servants, the Press) to give up his Senate seat.
When Lieberman (Democrat) ran for Vice President,
he cleverly ran for BOTH Semate and VP in the same election.
Kerry kept his seat, too.
CONCLUSION: DOLE is a Democratic pleaser, tractable, docile and limp.
"Someday there will be a liberal Democrat president and a liberal Democrat Congress," Sen. John McCain
I'd like to ask McCain if he is talking about himself in that role.
LOL, isn't Tom Raum in the title enough of a barf alert?
I am outraged that the Republicans are ALREADY acting
like the minority party. I am further outraged because
the Senate rule (22) allowing filibusters is clearly
UNCONSTITUTIONAL no matter by whom employed! There are
only seven instances in the U.S. Constitution which
require supermajority votes and confirmation of judicial
nominees is NOT one of them. Wouldn't it be a shock if
these politicians did something once simply because it
is the RIGHT thing to do?
More like wishful thinking on his part.
these days, even obvious barf set-ups require large barf alerts...we are getting to the tipping point and ....I'm getting barfed out......:)
When Dole ran for Vice President in 1976, he kept his Senate seat.
He only resigned in '96 because his campaign wasn't getting any traction and he thought it would make people take him more seriously. Unfortunately, people were fat and happy with Clinton in power and didn't want to think too deeply about the race.
Spend the Time and Effort that would be put into this effort...into getting a Filibuster free Majority in 2006.
If we make this a Law and we down the road end up a minority..we may as well just shoot ourselves in the foot.
What semblance of a working relationship is this guy talking about? Either he is too dumb to realize there is no relationship, or smart enough to know the Pubs are dumb enough to believe there still is one. John McCann just happens to be the dumbest of the lot. I say nuke 'em while you can.
Muleteam1
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.