Hatch group may go ‘nuclear’ on judges: Plan would limit use of Rule XXII in Dem filibusters

The Hill ^ | 5/7/03 | Alexander Bolton and Geoff Earle

[dwilli]

Talk's cheap and thats all the Republicans will do. They're so afraid of being called mean or sexist or racist or something politically incorrect they are tongue-tied.

[Tailback]

One drawback of this proposed tactic is that it might destroy whatever is left of the working relationship between Democrats and Republicans. That is why some legislative experts liken the parliamentary tool to a legislative nuclear bomb.

Exactly what working relationship is he talking about? The Dems are voting in complete lockstep with each other, there is not one bit of Dem bi-partisanship going on. They have made their bed, now they can lie in it.

[Waco]

Looks like the Pubbies will be seeing a lot of new girly friends soonly.!

[headsonpikes]

I'm sure the People can trust the elected lawyers to do the right thing.

[snopercod]

Don't count your Hatch before he chickens...

[Maigret]

It seems like I've heard of the parliamentarian doing more than one big favor for the Dems, is he in their pocket?

[TommyDale]

Dear Senator Frist,

Are you ready to RRRRRRUMMMMMMBLE?

[snopercod]

<“It would be a nuclear winter in the Senate,” said the aide. “This place would fall apart. It would be dire consequences if that happened, in my opinion.” /I>

Question is, would anybody notice if the Senate closed up shop for a couple of years...

[wideawake]

Perfect.

[Grig]

Of course, the Dems could stop this dead in it's tracks by ending the fillibuster. They won't of course, and time will show if the Repubs are just trying to bluff them into doing that or if they really mean it.

[goldstategop]

Senate Republicans are afraid of being called bad names in the press if they stop being cozy with the Democrats. If you have majority power and are unwilling to use it to advance your agenda, what's the point of being the majority party? I'd be willing to scrap the GOP legislative agenda in exchange for getting more conservative judges on the federal bench, including the U.S Supreme Court. That will matter long President Bush is gone from office and will be consequential to this country's future in the event the GOP ever loses its congressional majority. Its time to bring out the "nuclear bomb" out from the basement and show Tommy Daschund and the Rat obstructionists we want those judicial nominees confirmed and in office and a minority of the Senate should not be allowed to hold up on a vote on them simply because they disapprove of their ideological orientation.

[vollmond]

I don't like this. It could have the effect of turning the Senate into a rubber stamp for the executive branch. They need to force real fillibusters. Preferably just before votes on issues the Dems hold dear.

[litehaus]

Uh huh?

[onyx]

LOL! Very clever!

[Bubba_Leroy]

One drawback of this proposed tactic is that it might destroy whatever is left of the working relationship between Democrats and Republicans.

Give me a f***ing break. The only way for the Republicans to have a "working relationship" with the democRATs is to bend over whenever the democRATs tell them to.

Grow some balls and do it!

[johnb838]

What the hell does that mean?

[Centurion2000]

One drawback of this proposed tactic is that it might destroy whatever is left of the working relationship between Democrats and Republicans. That is why some legislative experts liken the parliamentary tool to a legislative nuclear bomb.

Under the most likely scenario, the presiding officer of the Senate — perhaps Vice President Dick Cheney — would rule that a filibuster of presidential nominees is unprotected by Rule XXII.

I personally prefer to see the Dems going 24/7 in a REAL filibuster, but this is good enough. Cheney be the party-pooper :)

[CA Conservative]

I don't like this. It could have the effect of turning the Senate into a rubber stamp for the executive branch. They need to force real fillibusters. Preferably just before votes on issues the Dems hold dear.

How would it do that? If a majority of senators opposed a nominee, that nominee could still be voted down. All this would do is require that an up or down vote is held, and will not allow a minority to kill a nomination that had majority support.

It would also not eliminate the legislative filibuster, as noted in the article above.