Here is a blast from the recent past. Note the second point in the bulleted list.
Frist Said to Have 'Nuclear Option' Votes
Posted by Cboldt to California Patriot
On News/Activism 05/23/2005 1:27:16 AM EDT 176 of 190
I have advocated that cloture (Rule XXII) not be invoked, and have a list of concepts, reasons, signals, etc. that support my reasoning. I also speculated that cloture would be avoided, and as we now know, I was completely wrong in that speculation.
- Using cloture puts some control of the matter in DEM hands. If the cloture motion passes because a handful of DEMs support it, the minority retains the abilities to: block a future nominee; and create this same tiresome ruckus all over again.
- The public is conditioned to see the GOP as wielding the nuclear trigger. If cloture passes, the trigger is not executed, and many in the GOP base will (incorrectly) perceive GOP weakness.
- One of the purposes of cloture, in fact the reason it exists, is to limit debate. Frist indicates no intention to limit debate on the nominee, hence, no need for cloture.
- The rights to unlimited debate and to withold consent to vote are designed to facilitate compromise. But in a nominee, no adjustment can be made. Compromise is an inapplicable notion when the matter under consideration is a nominee. The nominee is either suitable for the post, or not. "Yes or no," is the only question.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1404953/posts?page=13#13 - Trading the 60 vote supermajority to take a vote (of cloture) for unanimous consent (the underlying Senate tradition) forces individual Senators to individually object to voting, and defend their individual "right" to deny rendering their judgement on a nominee. That is, a single Senator withholding consent to the vote will CLEARLY be seen as an abuse of Senatorial discretion, where cloture is NOT clearly seen as extreme.
- If cloture fails, and the vote is to proceed anyway, having invoked Rule XXII creates a risk of falling into the rules change pitfall, where 2/3rd supermajority is required to change a rule.
- Avoiding the use or change of Rule XXII in the context of a nominee would retain cloture, as it is, for legislative matters.
- The Senate has no right to withhold a vote when the vote is on a matter that affects another branch. In this case, a minority of Senators are rejecting an officer of the president's choosing - it should take a simple majority of Senators to reject.
- Senate practice regarding traties, as reflected in Riddick's, implements the principle above. Instead of requiring a simple majority to put off a vote on a treaty, Riddick's notes a 2/3rds majority vote requirement.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1407096/posts?page=29#29 - Moving ahead without invoking cloture can be spun to the gullible public as a "compromise," (see, we didn't change the rules) saving face for the DEMs and RINO's.
I would appreciate your thoughts on this.
I started thinking about all the talk of "controversial decisions" by judges. I know what I (and most Freepers) consider a controversial opinion: instructing the MA legislature to write legislation on gay marriage, declaring the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, juvenile death penalty, relying on international law, etc.
I feel comfortable asserting that a vast majority of American voters would agree with my list.
But what is the liberal perspective? If one asked a liberal to list controversial rulings by conservative judges, could they come up with a list that would garner agreement from voters? Perhaps it's my conservative bias, but the only one I can think of is Judge Roy Moore and the Ten Commandments...and he wasn't a federal judge (Thank God).
It may seem like a small point, but I think this might be something the pubbies ought to research.