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...

[conservativecorner]

I'm right there with ya on making sure they are defeated. The Club For Growth can fund a qualified conservative candidate in any RINO state. Toomey almost knocked off Specter which would have been a real blessing to this party.

[dpwiener]

However, if the dems decide not to force a fillibuster, why don't 41 republicans fillibuster, and still force a vote on cloture?

Because it's politically impossible; the Republicans would lose the "high moral ground".

Right now Republican Senators (especially the ones who've expressed squishy views) can argue to the American public that their votes for the nuclear/Constitutional option are being cast in extremis: They've tried everything possible to get the Democrats to allow an up-or-down vote on each judicial nominee, and the Democrats refuse to behave responsibly. Hence the Republicans have no choice, and going nuclear is an absolute last resort.

But if Democrats cave on filibustering, and Republicans still press the nuclear button, public sentiment will swing radically against the latter. Republicans will be seen as merely seeking power and repressing the rights of minority party Senators, for no good reason. And in that case the Democrats will be able to claim justification when they retaliate by effectively shutting down the Senate. The general public will side with the Democrats and blame the Republicans.

Sure, you can make a case for enacting the Constitutional option as a matter of principle. But that's not how politics works. The reality is that Democrats will be able to maintain the current filibuster rules for as long as they choose not to invoke a filibuster.

[conservativecorner]

The country is moving to the right and not just the party. Here's hoping McCrazy gets burned big time with all his wheeling and dealing with the demoncrats. Somebody ask the be-ach where he gets off siding with the demoncrats, and what would the constitutional reason be for him doing this? He's a complete POS that I will oppose big time!

[conservativecorner]

"I understand why Reps run people like Chafee, but at a certain point we need something in return. Otherwise we are financing a campaign for Democrats. Chafee, for example, has stood in opposition to the war, tax cuts, said he was voting against the President, has been weak on Bolton and will vote against the end of the filibuster. That money that is used to elect Chafee could be spent elsewhere in a tight contest where a more conservative Republican could emerge."

I can't agree more with your sound reasoning. BUMP for a great post.

[Howlin]

Let me see if I have this right: 12 people think THEY are going to decide this?

[conservativecorner]

Rotten bunch of puke RINOS, but 2006 is just around the corner, and we will not forget this.

[Soul Seeker]

Twelve people that have a vested interest in either a) securing their election in red states b) securing their power as swing votes believe they can pull this off with minumum damage personally.

My response to them is that we will know who did what and repay them accordingly in their elections.

[TeleStraightShooter]

concur

If the (D)s decline to filibuster, open up the nominee flood gates and reserve the right to evoke the Byrd option.

[Mo1]

Let me see if I have this right: 12 people think THEY are going to decide this?

They even try to pull a stunt and it will be the VOTERS that decide how this all ends

HINT TO RINO'S ... WE ARE NOT RIGHT WINGERS ...

[oceanview]

if McCain is party to this deal (if it materializes), he is done for the 2008 presidential bid I think. because this same "compromise team" would essentially be picking any SCOTUS nominees also - if this compromise deal goes through, the Dems will play the same card with all the SCOTUS nominees, and these 6 Rs will be asked to compromise again or face the rules change. it will just go on and on. that would rule out any conservative SCOTUS nominees.

[Txsleuth]

Yeah, what ya'll said--besides, who decided who gets on this "committee" or whatever it is---

Isn't it amazing that one branch of the US Government---that is integral in our lives one way or another, everyday, is MAKING THINGS UP AS THEY GO ALONG!

[hoosiermama]

Well I just got in ......is there a quick synopsis somewhere?

[Soul Seeker]

And, again, I don't know if there is any truth to this but given the stakes I am not willing to take any chance by giving them the benefit of the doubt.

IMO, McCain has already sealed his fate regarding a possible Presidential run but if he were a party to this his standing as a Senator would be close to finished. I don't think Any Republican could recover from this level of betrayal.

[Txsleuth]

How about we just saw a bunch of bloviating on the dems side, and we saw some measured debate from the good guys, and we start all over again tomorrow.

[Howlin]

because this same "compromise team" would essentially be picking any SCOTUS nominees also

OMG. OMG. Just OMG. You are SO right.

[Txsleuth]

That wasn't very nice of me---I forgot to add the sarcasm tag....

But, I guess what I posted really is about it---the dems gave the same speech over and over---same talking points, abuse of power, cup and saucer, extremist judges, minority rights...

I am sure some of the other posters can add to this---

OH, yeah, there is a Cabal of Chickens or somesuch that involves 12 senators, 6 of each brand that has taken it upon themselves to decide a compromise---but, the game is, WE DON'T GET TO KNOW WHO THEY ARE!!!

[TeleStraightShooter]

nelson: "extreme" (aka conservatives) candidates... I was engaged in conversation with an "Right-To-Take-Life {abortion} lobby apologist and the subject of "extreme" judicial candidates was broached.

RTTL: Judicial Filibusters prove that our system of checks and balances are alive and well!

Funny you should say that.
One of the main reasons this whole issue is being fought because the judicial branch has no effective check on it for sitting judges.

Consider the paper-scissors-rock scheme of checks and balances our founding dads designed.
The "rock" of the judiciary branch has grown to a boulder.
The "paper" of the legislative branch is but a post it note.

RTTL: All the more reason to nominate reasonable, rather than extreme, candidates for the bench.

You and the (D)s define extreme as judges who think the the "rock" of the judiciary branch should be reduced to fit with in the paper {8x11 should do it) of the legislative branch.

You and the (D)s define reasonable as judges who hold the extreme view that international law should mold our USConstituion {just look @ the recent SCOTUS opinion that outlawed the deathPeanlty for the under 18 DCSniper John Lee Malvo)

LOL!
Your prescription to correct your acknowledgment of unbalanced Checks and Balances will grow the "boulder" and make it even more out of balance!

[TeleStraightShooter]

nelson: "extreme" (aka conservatives) candidates...

I was engaged in conversation with an "Right-To-Take-Life {abortion} lobby apologist and the subject of "extreme" judicial candidates was broached.

RTTL: Judicial Filibusters prove that our system of checks and balances are alive and well!

Funny you should say that.
One of the main reasons this whole issue is being fought because the judicial branch has no effective check on it for sitting judges.

Consider the paper-scissors-rock scheme of checks and balances our founding dads designed.
The "rock" of the judiciary branch has grown to a boulder.
The "paper" of the legislative branch is but a post it note.

RTTL: All the more reason to nominate reasonable, rather than extreme, candidates for the bench.

You and the (D)s define extreme as judges who think the the "rock" of the judiciary branch should be reduced to fit with in the paper {8x11 should do it) of the legislative branch.

You and the (D)s define reasonable as judges who hold the extreme view that international law should mold our USConstituion {just look @ the recent SCOTUS opinion that outlawed the deathPeanlty for the under 18 DCSniper John Lee Malvo)

LOL!
Your prescription to correct your acknowledgment of unbalanced Checks and Balances will grow the "boulder" and make it even more out of balance!

[ZOTnot]

Good luck; I'm in the same boat: 2900+ replies; 73,000+ views.

I knew this was an important thread when I visited this AM first thing in the morning. Because of work, I could not come back until now. I will never be able to catch up now, nor to know a likely outcome....

Some early today predicted the 'nuclear stuff' would not happen until next week sometime. Hopefully they are correct, because if the nuclear 'happened' today, I will have missed it altogether.

Any masterful 'Cliff Notes' kinds of people out here who can give a one paragraph synopis of today's events?

[Timeout]

Byron York has an update at NRO's The Corner:

Participants in the bipartisan Senate filibuster talks remain optimistic they can make a deal that will head off a Republican decision to exercise the nuclear/constitutional/Byrd option.

One change that has occurred is Democrats are no longer demanding the right to filibuster future nominees whom they deem "extreme." Republicans note that Democrats have referred to virtually every Bush nominee to whom they object as "extreme," meaning that including the word in any agreement would give Democrats a blank check to filibuster nominees in the future. Now, both sides are using the phrase "extraordinary circumstances," which is believed would indicate a Democratic commitment to refrain from filibusters.

There has also been discussion of parity of demands. So far, Democrats have offered to refrain from filibusters -- except in those "extraordinary" circumstances -- in return for a Republican guarantee not to use the nuclear/constitutional/Byrd option for the remainder of the 109th Congress. Republicans, on the other hand, have discussed offering to refrain from using the option except in "extraordinary circumstances" -- in other words, agreeing to the same conditions as Democrats. It is not clear whether Democrats will accept that condition.

But it does appear that Democrats are backing down somewhat on the number of nominees they would insist on killing as part of any agreement. One scenario has Democrats agreeing to up-or-down votes for all nominees except William Myers and Henry Saad, meaning five currently blocked nominees would receive up-or-down votes in the full Senate. [I don't think this would make Bush/Cheney too happy]

Finally, as of now, Republicans plan to hold a cloture vote on the nomination of Priscilla Owen next Tuesday night. If no agreement is reached by then, Republicans will test the Democrats' commitment to filibuster Owen. If Democrats choose to continue, then the GOP plan calls for the vote that will end the filibusters.

Man, it's a loooooong time til Tuesday. I'm beginning to think these mavericks are gonna cut a deal. Dang.