Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DeWine Says He'll Back Ban On Filibusters In US Senate
Associated Press ^ | November 1, 2005

Posted on 11/01/2005 12:40:15 AM PST by RWR8189

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. Mike DeWine said he would back conservative threats to change Senate rules to ban filibusters of judicial nominees if anyone dared to use the tactic to challenge President Bush's latest Supreme Court choice.

The Republican from Ohio took a lot of criticism from conservatives when he helped forge a deal with Democrats preserving the minority party's right to filibuster nominees, but only in "extraordinary circumstances."

The compromise stopped a logjam in the Senate over Bush's nominees to lower courts.

DeWine said the latest Supreme Court nominee, veteran appeals court Judge Samuel Alito, is "within the mainstream of conservative thought," rejecting early suggestions by Democratic leaders that the nominee is too radical.

"I can't believe anyone would believe this is a nominee that could be filibustered or that it would rise to the level of 'extraordinary circumstances,"' said DeWine, one of 18 Senate Judiciary Committee members who will hold confirmation hearings on Alito. "If someone would filibuster, though, I would be prepared to vote to change the rules."

DeWine's position is a stark departure from the conciliatory tone he struck as one of seven Republicans and seven Democrats who brokered the compromise earlier this year.

Two conservative groups railed against DeWine in radio ads and accused him of striking "a backroom deal."

One of those, the Family Research Council from Washington, said DeWine had taken a "step in the right direction" and showed the weakness of the coalition, known as the Gang of 14.

"It's probably the result of hearing from his constituents," said council president Tony Perkins.

DeWine "would be in very odd position in regards to a judge like Alito if he did not come to the defense of the president's nominee. If anything, I think he's trying to show his support for the president because, in backing the Gang of 14 compromise and pulling the rug out from under Senator Frist, he hurt the president."

DeWine said the Gang of 14 would meet soon to discuss Alito's credentials.

Democratic leaders have not said anything about filibustering Alito, only that he "requires an especially long, hard look," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday.

DeWine also broke with the more conservative wing of his party in supporting Harriet Miers, Bush's last nominee to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

He was dismayed when she withdrew her nomination Thursday and had complained about the pressure exerted by conservative interest groups.

He liked the diversity that Miers represented -- a woman and a lawyer who had never been a judge.

But he wasn't too concerned that Alito represents the opposite on both counts -- a federal judge for 15 years who, according to Reid, would make the court look "less like America and more like an old boys club."

"He was on the short list both previous times" when Bush chose Miers and eventual Chief Justice John Roberts instead, DeWine said. "He's been talked about a lot and I don't know anything about him that could make anyone think he should be filibustered."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Ohio
KEYWORDS: 109th; alito; constitutionaloption; dewine; filibuster; gangof14; judgealito; mikedewine; nuclearoption; ohio; rino; rinos; samalito; samuelalito
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 next last
To: RWR8189

I would think that a good gauge of "extraordinary circumstance" is that it represents a judge that the Congress would entertain impeachment proceedings against.


21 posted on 11/01/2005 4:55:36 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189; Lexinom
The wonders of warmth, sunglasses and Suntan Oil. :D
22 posted on 11/01/2005 4:56:52 AM PST by skinkinthegrass (Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you :^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neutrality
Actually he says he'll only back the ban if a judicial nominee who he finds acceptable is filibustered.

A failure to obtain cloture is the only context that the nuclear option (the ban) can play in. If a cloture vote is held, and cloture is obtained, all is well in the process.

23 posted on 11/01/2005 4:57:37 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
weren't there a few nominees NOT covered by the agreement? What is their status?

Summary of Circuit Court Nominations

F = 7 subjected to failed cloture motions in 108th Congress
4 = "1 of 4" that DEMs offered to let GOP choose which 3 to dump
S = Positive mention in Specter's May 9, 2005 speech

M = MOU of 14 will not vote against cloture
m = MOU of 14 makes no promise regarding cloture
R = Post-MOU, Reid indicates desire to filibuster

C = Out of committee & on the Senate's Executive Calendar
U = Unanimous consent to debate - date TBD
D = Democrats offer to debate - date TBD
v = Debate and vote scheduled
V = Vote -on the nomination- concluded

       --S  --  C--  Boyle, Terrence W.       (4th Cir)
       ---  -R  ---  Haynes, William James II (4th Cir)
       F4S  M-  CUV  Owen, Priscilla          (5th Cir)
       F-S  --  CUV  Griffin, Richard A.      (6th Cir)
       F-S  --  CUV  McKeague, David W.       (6th Cir)
       --S  --  -D-  Neilson, Susan Bieke     (6th Cir)
       F--  mR  ---  Saad, Henry W.           (6th Cir)
       F4S  mR  C--  Myers, William Gerry III (9th Cir)
       F4S  M-  CUV  Pryor, William H.        (11th Cir)
       F4S  M-  CUV  Brown, Janice Rogers     (D.C. Cir)
       --S  --  CUV  Griffith, Thomas B.      (D.C. Cir)
       ---  -R  ---  Kavanaugh, Brett M.      (D.C. Cir)
Last updated, June 21, 2005

Owen: Cloture passed 81-18 on May 24. Confirmed 55-43 on May 25.
Brown: Cloture passed 65-32 on June 7. Confirmed 56-43 on June 8.
Pryor: Cloture passed 67-32 on June 8. Confirmed 53-45 on June 9.
Griffin: Confirmed 95-0 on June 9.
McKeague: Confirmed 96-0 on June 9.
Griffith: Confirmed 73-24 on June 14.
Myers: Out of Committee on March 17.
Boyle: Out of Committee on June 16.

Additional source material


24 posted on 11/01/2005 4:59:46 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
Thank you Senator DeWine for coming to your senses on this issue. Elections are policy battles and we have been winning handily in the last two cycles. Time to claim the spoils = policy decisions.
25 posted on 11/01/2005 5:02:10 AM PST by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wouldntbprudent
Do you really think the Rats would filibuster if they know even the wimpies are on board with the nuclear option this time?

Short Answer: no
Long Answer: If given Half a chance, Yes. The "Gang" coming out this early, has dishearten the 'Rats.

26 posted on 11/01/2005 5:03:50 AM PST by skinkinthegrass (Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you :^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: skinkinthegrass
Oh, the beauty.

The perceived power of the President Bush has turned completely around in the scope of 48 hours.

Just read the news this morning. The Dems are on their heels.HAHAAHAHHA

Their hope that the RINOS would support the Dems in a filibuster is gone. None of the RINOS have come out for that because they can't. They would loose ALL Pub support in their next primary.

In addition, Judge Alito is a nice guy with stellar credentials. Dewine, Linsay already LIKE HIM.

You gotta know their "indictment excitement" is just about gone all together. President Bush went down to the mat, just far enough, to give them an upper cut between the legs.

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

27 posted on 11/01/2005 5:22:09 AM PST by ALWAYSWELDING
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: skinkinthegrass

Agreed.


28 posted on 11/01/2005 5:25:17 AM PST by wouldntbprudent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ALWAYSWELDING
even (V.P. :) ...Linsay already LIKE HIM. President Bush went down to the mat, just far enough, to give them an upper cut between the legs.

*Wheezing*

YUP! That did it!...the 'Rats, are temporizing / Dazed / Shocked & Awed :D

29 posted on 11/01/2005 5:39:23 AM PST by skinkinthegrass (Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you :^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: counterpunch
The GOP has the votes. There will be no filibuster.

I hope you are half wrong. I want the "nuclear" option to be fired successfully to preempt such tactics from being used for the next picks. It is the "constitutional" option, but its effect on the libs will be nuclear if it lets us replace Stevens with someone like JRB. The only good thing about RHINOs is that their lack of spine bends both ways. If they feel more pressure from the right than from the left they can be bent in our direction. We need to keep on pushing 'our' RHINOs, but yet never miss a chance to replace them with someone principled.

30 posted on 11/01/2005 6:52:03 AM PST by JohnBovenmyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
I believe the USSC has said that the rules of one Senate cannot bind a future Senate. I think that each senatorial session should vote on its own rules, including whether or not to allow filibusters.
31 posted on 11/01/2005 6:54:42 AM PST by BikerNYC (Modernman should not have been banned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

Good. He and Lindsey Graham are coming out of the filibuster closet.

I frankly think every Republican Senator is realizing that his or her election bread is gonna be buttered right here and now over Alito.

Reminds me of what I call the rule of 2s. Only two times have Republican Senators not voted unanimously to confirm a judge nominated by a Republican President, and each time there were only two votes against. I don't expect many will jump from the bandwagon this time either.


32 posted on 11/01/2005 6:59:23 AM PST by Kryptonite (McCain, Graham, Warner, Snowe, Collins, DeWine, Chafee - put them in your sights)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: counterpunch

"McCain, we can best guess will support the nuclear option. "

The Conservatives just threw down the gauntlet to McCain. In one fell swoop they ended his Presidential aspirations.


33 posted on 11/01/2005 7:00:59 AM PST by EQAndyBuzz (Liberal Talking Point - Bush = Hitler ... Republican Talking Point - Let the Liberals Talk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Many thanks my good friend...so, as an added bonus of a nuclear option being deployed....


34 posted on 11/01/2005 7:04:16 AM PST by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
so, as an added bonus of a nuclear option being deployed...

Myers (9th Circuit) has been out of Committee since March. The GOP-lead Senate has purposely avoided bringing it up. Boyle's nomination has been out since June - and the same avoidance plays there.

You'll see 4 other nominations held up in the Judiciary Committee, with the YOUNGEST nomination being that of Haynes, which was made in September 2003.

The Senate is a real problem here. If they don't like a nomination that the President persists in advancing, they can vote it down.

35 posted on 11/01/2005 7:20:25 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
I can somewhat understand why the senate GOP leadership has allowed these to hang out there..though very unfair to the nominees..they had to figure a showdown on the SCOTUS nominees,so better to keep the powder dry for this fight, FIRST...

BTW..one more question you might know...has Bush said anything about naming Roberts' replacement to the DC circuit?..( which in many ways is MORE important than the SCOTUS)..I'd love to see Estrada get it..

36 posted on 11/01/2005 7:41:34 AM PST by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

DeWhine needs to be defeated in his next primary . He's extremely anti-gun and never misses a chance to collaborate with the Libs . Same goes for Voinowitch . What's in the Republican water in Ohio , RINO pee ?


37 posted on 11/01/2005 7:49:08 AM PST by FRONTLINER (Crush the Left !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
weren't there a few nominees NOT covered by the agreement? What is their status?

There were four "controversial" nominees who were NOT mentioned in "the deal":
Brett Kavanaugh, William Myers, William Haynes, and Henry Saad.

If I recall correctly, Saad was the only one who was definitely thrown overboard by the Republicans. (That had something to do with some Democrat Senator from Saad's state who had a real bug up his behind and also had some other deal going on.... I don't recall the exact details.)

I believe that the other three are presently in limbo. In any event, the three most controversial of the bunch, Brown, Owen, and Pryor, WERE confirmed quickly and without fuss following announcement of "the deal". Plus, I believe that a few additional lower profile judges have been confirmed.

38 posted on 11/01/2005 7:50:23 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
I can somewhat understand why the senate GOP leadership has allowed these to hang out there..though very unfair to the nominees..they had to figure a showdown on the SCOTUS nominees,so better to keep the powder dry for this fight, FIRST...

I predict that there will be no cloture abuse on the Alito nomination, and that the languishing Circuit Court nominations will not be advanced. To do so would risk confronting the abuse of cloture, and the GOP-lead Senate is averse to that confrontation.

has Bush said anything about naming Roberts' replacement to the DC circuit?

Not that I know of. Neither the Judiciary Committe material not the WH announcements contain any nominations since July 29, 2005, other than Roberts to CJ, Miers and Alito.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/judicialnominees/
http://judiciary.senate.gov/noms/109.pdf

39 posted on 11/01/2005 7:54:34 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

I suspect you are right, that the Dems will NOT filabuster Alioto, and the GOP will roll over on the rest..however. there is ONE scenario to upset that applecart...Frist is a lame duck leader, so the candidates to replace him may try to gain support, and traction, by forcing the issue. I can easily visualize McConnell willing to make his bones on this..


40 posted on 11/01/2005 7:58:34 AM PST by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson