Skip to comments.
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
Posted on 05/07/2003 1:38:13 PM PDT by Jean S
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-135 next last
To: michigander
Excellant point... :)
101
posted on
05/07/2003 3:50:32 PM PDT
by
skinkinthegrass
(Just because your paranoid,doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. :)
To: JeanS
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. This statement has got to rank rtight up there with the stupidest things I've ever read!!!!Working relationship?!?!?!?!?!!? What planet is this writer currently occupying?
102
posted on
05/07/2003 3:52:02 PM PDT
by
pgkdan
To: JeanS
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. Republicans and Democrats have a "working relationship"? That's news to me!
103
posted on
05/07/2003 3:52:05 PM PDT
by
Mini-14
To: bribriagain
If the American people a foolish enough to elect Shrillary President, they deserve the slick one as Chief SCOTUS. And wouldn't ANYONE mention what a perversion of justice it would mean to have a Cheif Justice that was previously DISBARRED?
104
posted on
05/07/2003 3:53:00 PM PDT
by
Tall_Texan
(Destroy the Elitist Democrat Guard and the Fedayeen Clinton using the smart bombs of truth!)
To: William McKinley
The Democrats keep adding to the filibustering. Two now, two more to come. Eventually, the case that something unprecedent is happening becomes overwhelming, to where there is political cover for doing something unprecedented in response. Something unprecedented that destroys the ability to filibuster judges, even when nominated for the Supreme Court.This is about the Supreme Court, and the Republicans are letting the Democrats load the cannon that is pointing at their last line of defense.
I think there is a lot of truth to this. The underlying theme and steam of the 2000 election, the thing that the Dems most feared, were Republican appointed judges. Estrada and Owen, unfortunately, are pawns in a larger political game being played. The Dems, after losing leadership, came out swinging to steal the will and influence of a Republican controlled Senate. They roughly try to blame Estrada for not answering questions and citing a sort of payback for the Republican's treatment of Clinton nominees. But that is all cover. They don't want pro-life candidates or for the courts to shift judicial trends favoring their special interests. And of course they don't want a Republican appointed Supreme Court justice.
105
posted on
05/07/2003 3:55:26 PM PDT
by
Dolphy
To: Grand Old Partisan
I am not suggesting they roll over. The procedural change in the definition of a filibuster is what is allowing this to happen. If the Senator who was filibustering actually had to stand up on the floor and keep his lips wagging in order to wag his lips to keep the filibuster going, the floor vote would have happened months ago. All productivity in the senate ( now that is an oxymoron ) would cease until the issue got settled.
Democrats would not even be able to go out and raise funds.
What has changed is the rules for a filibuster. Now they can hold a filibuster in place without even being on the floor.
Time to repeal the rule changes.
106
posted on
05/07/2003 3:57:37 PM PDT
by
eFudd
To: JeanS
Message to President Bush:
JUST DO IT!
The status quo is just more State Dept. pious wimp RINO garbage. You never win appeasing evil - NEVER!
The scum Dummys are trying to overturn an election (i.e. the Senate is Republican).
Now it is time to go Rummy on the DummycRats.
Anything less than take no prisoners victory makes you look completely impotent domestically.
107
posted on
05/07/2003 4:00:45 PM PDT
by
Enduring Freedom
(To smash the ugly face of Socialism is our mission)
To: William McKinley; TLBSHOW; Congressman Billybob; Grand Old Partisan
This is about the Supreme Court, and the Republicans are letting the Democrats load the cannon that is pointing at their last line of defense. I agree. It's very strange indeed that, by engaging in these unprecedented lower-court filibusters, the RATs are making it possible that they will lose the right to filibuster even for SCOTUS seats, where they do have the precedent of the Fortas filibuster.
To: eFudd
PASTE or
CLICK this and send Mr. Frist a note... Remind him that WE THE PEOPLE are getting tired...or ask him if HILLARY is running the Senate??? GRRRRRRRRRRRumble!!
109
posted on
05/07/2003 4:04:21 PM PDT
by
GRRRRR
(If the GOP could just send in the Marines against the Demokrats now....)
To: eFudd
The lack of the possibility of filibustering will only matter to the Republicans if and when the RATs both control the White House and have a majority in the Senate. There's a good chance those two things will not happen together again for many years.
Plus, Republicans have not been in the habit of filibustering judicial appointments. We could do it from now on, as an answer to the RATs' filibustering. But don't you think there's a good chance we won't?
To: All
To: N3WBI3
I dont like this, whos to say that if the Dems get the Senate and White House in 12 years they wont use it. If the DemocRATs ever win the Senate and the White House and the Republicans tried to filibuster judicial appointments, I wouldn't be on their side. It is unconstitutional, regardless of who tries it.
To: Freakazoid
If the republicans are voted down on this because of RINOS,worse case ,we're back to square one.Then hammer on the obstructionist theme.
To: Tailback
Actually nothing would IMPROVE cooperation by the dems more. Once they realize the Republicans are serious, and will act, suddenly they will find it in their interest to try and move things along instead of being obstructionist.
114
posted on
05/07/2003 4:16:42 PM PDT
by
Kozak
To: N3WBI3
Courage my son.[or daughter]
To: JeanS
Pardon if I'm asking a bad question... since the Democrats are employing a fillabuster based on a rule, can't the Republicans appeal to the courts for a summary decision?
Does the Constitution limit such redress?
I know the Supreme Court rarely gets into other branch's kitchens, but I believe John Marshall (Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the early 1800s) helped set judicial review precedent with cases of this magnitude.
"Marshall's 1803 decision in Marbury vs. Madison declared the power of the Supreme Court to invalidate an act of Congress if it that act was in conflict with the Constitution."
Acts are one thing... what about rules?
Trajan88
To: khenrich; Stultis
If republican representatives or senators were to continually hold press conferences, or call in media types to give statements about the tactic the Democrats are using, the next election might solve the problem by eliminating some of the blockers. I like the ideas that both of you have displayed. The term 'nuclear option' is really one that is meant to ellicit harsh reactions and I don't think that it should be allowed to define the debate. It is also wrong, as in the 'quagmire', 'Vietnam repeat', 'massive civilian casulties' vein.
My next question is: What if Bush made recess appts., do they have to exit as soon as Congress reconvenes? Or does a replacement have to be voted on? Will they filibuster that or be glad of the replacement? Does the recess appt. stay until a new judge has been voted on? Depending on the answers, it could be a new source of hardball. It would go well with your suggestions.
117
posted on
05/07/2003 5:11:44 PM PDT
by
patj
To: Grand Old Partisan
Yours Truly is the person who suggested the Cheney maneuver to Hatch's staff.No offense, but I doubt you told them anything they didn't know. Especially considering Ted Stevens was there the last time the "nuclear option" was tried (in 1975).
To: patj
Recess appointments expire at the
end of the next session, unless they are confirmed in the meantime. For example, if Bush makes an appointment at the end of this year, it will expire at the end of next year.
Recess appointments of life-tenured judges are uncommon. Clinton did it on his way out the door, and so did Carter.
To: dwilli
The Grapevine guys on Britt Hume, Fred and Mort, don't think the R's have the 'stomach' for this. What they meant was cajones, and I don't think the R's have them either. Backbone has been out of stock in the R Senate as long as I can remember.
120
posted on
05/07/2003 5:55:47 PM PDT
by
gcruse
(Vice is nice, but virtue can hurt you. --Bill Bennett)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-135 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson