GOP's Filibuster Strategy Could Backfire (Tom Raum)

AP ^ | 4/16/05 | Tom Raum

[holdonnow]

This is a wire story???

[Not A Snowbird]

That is fine for legislation, but inappropriate for judicial nominations, Frist and his colleagues argue.

And they would be right.

These people don't realize that it's not about who might be in charge at any given time, it's about what's constitutional.

[GOPJ]

We need to take the dems on every step of the way.

[Diogenesis]

Dole is a Presidential loser who lost to a traitorous trollop.

He gave up his seat to APPEASE the Democrats. It is his way.

[Jean S]

It's a commentary disguised as an AP wire story.

[Bommer]

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.

It would be if Republicans could grow testicles and do the will of the people that put them in office!

[kylaka]

With the Rinos it is virtually impossible to get a filibuster free majority. You would need 67 or 68 Senate seats. It has almost never happened to either party which makes filibustering judicial nominees a joke. 90% of the judgeships would be vacant.

[FreedomSurge]

And then again it could succeed.

[AFPhys]

ha ha ha ---
dream on

'pubbies will never have to worry about libs having power again.

they may have to be concern about conservatives, but that is long way away...

[Diogenesis]

"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"

AP is run by terrorists and insurgents.
Only AP would quote a Democratic party Klu Klux Klansman about Hitler.

[tet68]

Dole is right, some day there WILL be a democrat majority
and none of our pleading," Bbbbbbut we didn't invoke a rule
change!" is going to stop them from exercising THEIR power.

WE MUST DO WHAT NEEDS BE DONE!

[Nonstatist]

Why don't they just change the Senate rules to guarantee a vote within 30 (or 60) days of getting a nomination

Because we would never have stopped nationalized health care without the fillibuster. ..

The changes they propose are more than reasonable, IMO

[ModelBreaker]

"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?"

We have that under the present system. The RINO's won't fight left-wing ideologues as judges when there's a rat president. So I don't see how it hurts us.

[SmithL]

I'd rather make the obstructionist party actually conduct a real-live, no-sleep filibuster than let them get away with blocking nominations with the mere threat of a filibuster.

[hinckley buzzard]

McCain, Dole, and Allan Lichtman are stooges. The GOP gives up nothing by changing the rules, because it has not used the filibuster on judicial nominees in the past and would not be expected to in the future.

The fact is, this a minor rule change which means almost nothing in the greater scheme of Congressional and Senatorial procedural distortions. The whole filibuster concept is a corruption of the legislative process. They should just do it and get it done and get on with making hay out of the 'rats response.

I'm starting to think the whole Senate are just a bunch of puffed up self-important toad princes.

[hinckley buzzard]

Oh yes--and whoever christened this tempest-in-a-teapot the "nuclear option" ought to be taken out and horse-whipped.

[deport]

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.

---

How true..... But Senator Dole how many of the nominees of a Democrat President have been rejected by the Senate or filibustered by the Republicans once they came to the floor for an up/down vote?..... Name one... Just One Senator Dole?

So what's to lose if you are going give them the up/down vote on your part and have the up/down vote rejected by the democrats when they chose?

[InterceptPoint]

McCain nonsense from Bob Dole. Let me give you a scenario:

It's 2017 and the Dems have managed a 51-49 majority in the Senate and elected Chelsea Clinton President. Chelsea nominates Noam Chomsky to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court following the unexpected and unexplained death of Anthony Scalia.

The Pubbies filibuster the nomination citing the example of the Dems doing the same thing for nearly 16 years during the Bush and Rice Administrations.

Teddy Kennedy takes the floor of the Senate and demands that the filibuster end "for the good of the country". He goes on to explain that the circumstances are completely different then they were during the Bush and Rice Administrations and that it is unconstitutional to filibuster a judicial nomination. States Kennedy: "What is it about the words 'advise and consent' that the Republicans don't understand. They are clearly violating the important Senate judicial oversight provisions of the Constitution with this illegal filibuster.

The Dems listen and act to change the confirmation rules. Filibustering a judicial nomination is no longer allowed.

Noam Chomsky becomes Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Tell me this won't happen if the Pubbies just be good soldiers and do what Teddy Kennedy and John McCain are telling them to do.

Give me a break.

[yeetch!]

Remember the Golden Rule: do unto others...but do it FIRST!

[BobL]

"Tell me this won't happen if the Pubbies just be good soldiers and do what Teddy Kennedy and John McCain are telling them to do."

You miss one point. The Republicans would never have the ba11s to systematically use the filibuster against judges, regardless of what the Dems do now. I also don't mind the Dems putting a few kooks on the courts - it reminds us of how sick they really are.