Free Republic

Frist is not taking the deal? I am confused again! He said all of them will get voted on!

LOL. This is great. Of course Frist is not "taking the deal." "The deal" has to play out on the floor of the Senate, in the form of votes. And hre we are. The DEMs can vote, or they can trigger the nuclear option. Their call. "Behave, or we'll spank you."

Vote or nuclear option. Their call.

Funny how so many folks think the spanker controls the timing of the spanking
Reid says nuclear option is gone -- no it's not. Frist just said it isn't.
Ooooh - things are still a bit warm there.
Reid says there will still be filibusters.
Then the spanker goes into action
If the DEMs vote, then there is no spanking
Reid is surprized by Frist's stance
The MOU did not, and could not dispose of the underlying issue

Am I the only one who heard Reid say last night that the Dems would fillibuster Meyers?

Nope ;-)

My comment was "Bwahahahahahahaa"

Part of the deal is two nominees will not go to vote and Bush will be forced to nominate another Ruth Marxist Bader Ginsberg to the next Supreme Court opening.

Ummm ... "not go to vote?" I think that point is going to be pushed. 14 Senators can't stop it. And the Senate, even though it wants to, does not prevent GWB from sending nominees of his preference.

Bill Frist has been saying for weeks that he had the votes. He lied to us. He did not have the votes.

We don't know that. The matter has not been put to the test (vote) yet. Frist never controlled the timing of the Constitutional Nuclear Byrd option. The option can't be executed until the DEMs actually implement a refusal to vote on a nominee.

Myers is already out of Committee and on the Senate's Executive Calendar.

I intend to remind everyone over and over again as the next general election comes up exactly how useless they are when it comes to actually standing up for a constitutional issue.

The DEMs and the 7 RINOs, and no doubt more, are not respecting the nominations power granted to the President, but ONLY IF they don't vote on the nominee.

Right now, Frist is saying he will continue to stand up for, and demand a vote on all nominations. The debate and vote has not been conceded.

Only if two of the seven RINOs vote for them.

'mornin! It'll be real interesting to see the votes and Committee hearings play out on the 12 judges now in the hopper. I give at least 80% odds that some DEMs, not necessarily the ones who signed onto the deal, will stall taking a vote on at least one of the 12.

         E. Benjamin Nelson (D-NE)   John McCain (R-AZ)
         Mike DeWine (R-OH)          John Warner (R-VA)
         Joe Lieberman (D-CT)        Robert Byrd (D-WV)
         Susan Collins (R-ME)        Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
         Mark Pryor (D-AR)           Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
         Lindsey Graham (R-SC)       Ken Salazar (D-CO)
         Lincoln Chaffee (R-RI)      Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI)    

That's not a good analogy - not yet. All of the ominees are now supposed to get a vote. The DEMs have agreed to vote on all of the nominees - up or down, just give them a vote. That is what was asked for, and that is what they say they are giving. "We will not filibuster, unless the nominee is extreme." Well, Myers is on the Senate Exec Calendar, and has to be disposed of. The gang of 14 does not control when the nominee comes up for debate and a vote.

I will NOT forget that a move to minority rule has happened

That move happened in 2003. It isn't being tolerated now. The GOP can't cave in until the DEMs again hold firm on their threat to not vote - and they will.

Most of the disappointment with the GOP is due to the fact that the GOP incorrectly cast itself as holding the trigger for the Constitutional Nuclear Byrd Option. It did not hold that trigger, and does not hold that trigger now.

Lots of people fell for the false assertion, "Frist has the nuclear trigger, and he's gonna USE IT!" Well, he'll use it if he has to, but he CAN'T use it if the Senate is voting on the nominees, just as it is supposed to do.

The DEM tactic of refusing to vote is parliamentary and Constitutional misbehavior. It is misbehavior that needs to be corrected. But the misbehavior has to be there in order to correct it.

We don't correct our children when they are behaving. We correct them when they are misbehaving.

I agree with all except holding fire on the RINO's.
It's great that they came out in the open.

Arrogant and selfish move, it is. They think the Senate is more important than the Constitution, and that the Senate revolves around them.

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.

You'll get a kick out of this.

    Cloture Motion is "Vitiated"
    (withdrawn, as if it never happened) -------------------------->+
    only possible with unanimous consent                            |
                                                                    |
                                                                    |
    Quorum Call                                                     |
       |                                                            |
       |                                                            |
    Vote on                                                         v
    Cloture ---> passes ----> move to "vote on the nominee" ------->+
       |                                                            |
       |                                                            |
    rejected                                                        |
       |                                                            |
       |                                                            |
    GOP raises a                                                    v
    point of order  ---> chair alone implements point of order ---->+
    to the Chair         (the ultimate nuclear option)              v
       |                                                            |
       |                                                            |
    Chair passes                                                    |
    point of order  ---> to be decided without debate -->+          |
    to the Senate                    |                   |          |
       |                             |                   |          |
       |                             v                   |          |
       |                         DEM Appeal        DEM acquiesce    |
       |                         for Debate on     to vote on       |
       |                         point of order    point of order   |
       |                             |             without debate   |
       |                             |                   |          |
       v                             v                   |          |
    point of order               GOP Motion              |          |
    to be debated   <-- fails -- to Table                |          |
    by the Senate                the DEM Appeal          |          |
       |                         (not debatable)         |          |
       |                             |                   |          |
       |                             |                   |          |
       |                             v                   |          |
       |                          passes                 |          |
       |                             |                   |          |
       v                             |                   |          |
    point of order                   v                   v          |
    to be voted on  <----------------+<----------------<-+          |
    by Senate                                                       |
       |                                                            |
       |                                                            |
       +-----> passes --> gain what the point of order asked for    |
       |                             |                              |
       |                             |                              |
       |                             v                              v
       |                  vote on the nomination <----------------<-+
       |
       |
       v
       +-----> fails ---> lose what the point of order asked for
                          no vote on the nomination

Until then the RNC better get ready. There are some very angry supporters who are tired of the B.S.

And that is a good thing too, IMO. Causes prevail in proportion to their dissatisfaction.

I've concluded that what got "sacrificed" is the Dems' ability to label nominees as extremists.

That is an awesome insight. It is GREAT when the discussion gets past the label, and onto WHY the label is attached.

My understanding (quite possibly incorrect as I'm on limited internet right now and little tv) was that certain of the nominees would be sacrificed by not bringing them to a vote.

There is more than one way to "not come to the vote." Myers is out of Committee and on the Senate Calendar. The nomination can't just be handed back to the President - unless GOP leadership never brings him up. If Frist never brings up the nominee, then you betch, FRIST will have caved. But he is not part of the deal.

If debate occurs on Myers, how can the vote be prevented? Just the same way it was prevented 18 times in the 108th Congress - DEMS refuse to vote, and here we are in Filibuster City.

To me, the biggest danger is if he pulls a Perot, running as an independent if he doesn't get the nomination. The only thing is...I can't decide whether he would attract more GOP moderates or Dems who've become disillusioned with their party.

DEMs. McCain is no threat to conservatives, in a presidential race.

Pardon if I'm not understanding correctly, but I thought the "deal" was that some of the nominees would be sacrificed. In fact, another article this morning says two more will be passed over.

How are they going to be sacrificed? What is the parliamentary process that disposes of them? If the nominees get the vote, then the principle of voting for the nominees is respected. If some Senators are viewed as casting a vote on a nominee based on some deal, instead of on the nominee ... well, that's tough to justify. I like when they are unprincipled in the open.