LIVE SENATE THREAD: "Nuclear Wednesday" for judicial nominations: C-span 2 - 9:30 am EST

C-span 2 ^ | May 18, 2005

[ken5050]

Welcome, all you Freepers, to the continuing C-span soap operas about judicial nominations. "The Guiding SEARCHLIGHT, " "As the SENATE Turns, "One NOMINATION to Live" "GERIATRIC Hospital" (for all you Byrd and Lautenberg fans out there). Follow along with us, as the Dems raise the level of histrionics, bloviation, pontification, and all around bad acting to new highs, er, lows...

[Carolinamom]

Keep in mind that it was Trent Lott who coined that "nuclear option" name so beloved by the liberals trying to evoke fear in "changing" the rules. Mitch McConnell accurately called it the Byrd Option.

[Txsleuth]

I don't have one, but you must, because I keep hearing Hannity and politicians talk about "getting the news" wherever they are...then they mention their Blackberrys--

I do know that there was a story on teenagers suffering a type of carpal tunnel syndrome of their thumbs because of "posting" on their Blackberries so much...

[Howlin]

One of the reasons we're in the spot we're in today is because of Trent Lott and his hairbrained SHARING POWER agreement.

[Soul Seeker]

I think the Byrd option is cute, I understand the nuclear option may not be popular for 'moderates'. I'm in the minority. I like the name, it suits my mood. lol Perhaps it isn't the proper code work for the public but the way I look at a nuke ended the war and brought 'peace'.

[yoe]

I was just listening to Reid blather on and on about the selfish, greedy Republicans trying to change the senate rules about filibustering...correct me if I am wrong, but filibustering legislative issues is the norm - not judicial appointees. So who is trying to change the rules here abusing the Constitution – does Reid think everyone is stupid but him? Yes I am angry!

[SolomoninSouthDakota]

I didn't say what you are saying.

I said it is not unreasonable to see the kind of behavior we see now.

I pointed out we have seen it in the past.

[Howlin]

Yes, he does.

[Carolinamom]

Our own NC legislature last year pulled that same Sharing the Power thing. Will NC EVER have another Rep. governor?

[Soul Seeker]

And I disagree. It is unreasonable given the efforts this President has made to increase their majorities and even carry many of them to re-election that would have lost otherwise. Spectre certainly would have lost the primary. Murkowski would have lost her bid.

The bottomline is that the President didn't kick Trent out. These senators kicked him out. Every single one of them.

[Timeout]

Yep.

And after all that, the MediaCrats will spin it that
Republicans backed down from the nuke option. LOL!

[AFPhys]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1404953/posts

Breaking the Rules: The Framers intended no more than a Senate majority to approve judges.

Here's the article I mentioned in Post#2671. It IS from NRO, and it DOES contain the side-by-side comparison and the dates that the judicial appt's question was brought before the Constitutional Convention.

It is too easy to lose information on FR nowadays - even if it has been posted here...

Someone Please post this early on in the live thread tomorrow - I have an early meeting and think it should be looked at by many. I have to go now... toodles... Excerpt:

On June 13, 1787, it was originally proposed that judges be “appointed by the national Legislature,” and that was rejected; Madison objected and made the alternative motion that appointments be made by the Senate, and that was at first approved. Madison specifically proposed that a “supermajority” be required for judicial appointments but this was rejected. On July 18, Nathaniel Ghorum made the alternative motion “that the Judges be appointed by the Executive with the advice & consent of the 2d branch,” (following on the practice in Massachusetts at that time). Finally, on Friday, September 7, 1787, the Convention approved the final Appointments Clause, making the president primary and the Senate (alone) secondary, with a role of “advice and consent.”

Obviously, this question is something that the Framers carefully considered. The Constitution and Supreme Court decisions are quite clear that only a majority is necessary for confirmation. Neither the filibuster, nor a supermajority vote, is part of the Advice and Consent role in the U.S. Constitution. Until the past four years, the Senate never did otherwise.

After discussion, the Framers of The Constitution clearly intended majority advise/consent approval of the Senate in this case to be sufficient, and wrote it that way, and ratified the document in this form.

Up until now (two years or so ago), that was always understood, and it was the only provision ever voted on in the history of the country regarding this issue. If they wish to change that, the Senate and House must muster a 2/3 majority to start to AMEND the Constitution.

That is why C. Borden Grey pointed out that the filibuster was NOT available during the Clarence Thomas process.

[small voice in the wilderness]

One of the reasons we're in the spot we're in today is because of Trent Lott and his hairbrained SHARING POWER agreement

MG, I had forgotten that bit of history. It's just unbelievable that any, ANY republicans still trust anything any dem. has to say. And yet..

The Republicans need to get a collective hearing aide. The dems. are actually saying to them May The Farce Be With You.

[SolomoninSouthDakota]

I think the President's silence definitely helped kick Sen. Lott out and over a silly comment for Strom.

[Txsleuth]

Hypothetical--

If you were Priscilla Owen or Janice Rogers Brown, would you, at this point or a little before now, feel like calling up Pres. Bush and say, "Never mind, this just isn't worth it, to my and my family, or to you, Mr. President"?

[Miss Marple]

I just got three names off Hannity and Colmes:

DeWine
Warner
McCain

[Txsleuth]

I just heard something very interesting on Hannity and Colmes--

They are interviewing Hatch and Ben Nelson---

Hannity was repeating some of the more insulting things that Reid has said about Bush and Brown and Owen, and asking Nelson if he is embarrassed that his "leader" said those things, --

Nelson deflected by saying that -he(Nelson) didn't say them, Reid did---but then, he said, that when he was Governor of Nebraska he APPOINTED all of the Supreme Court Justices, all of the Appeals Court Justices and half of the rest of the judges in the state!!!

Dang, he had power like THAT, and he wants the Pubbies not to even get an up or down vote on Bushs nominees?

[Soul Seeker]

The Senators are responsible for the dealings of the Senate. That includes who their majority leader is.

Again, this isn't about Lott.

[Jorge]

The president didn't lift a finger to stay the injustice of Sen Lott losing his job. That was despicable too.

Please. Lott blew it with his own big stupid mouth.
Then his tour of every news forum on TV groveling and apologizing over and over again was just pathetic.

Besides, before his lost his position everybody here seemed to only complain about how spineless and ineffectual he was as SML.

[Carolinamom]

McCain is always in the mix. He's still mad that SC put his presidential hopes on hold in 2000. Perhaps that's why he keeps dragging the willing Graham around.

[Mo1]

Lott's name was floated by Hannity .. But Nelson wouldn't confirm it .. said he didn't want to give names Just said that Lott was involved in the beginning but hasn't attened any of the recent meetings Nelson also agrees they should have an up or down vote