| Author |
Message |
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
 Tue Mar 15, 2005 10:17 pm Democrats at it again! Threatening to close the Senate! |
|
| Quote: | Democrats Warn Against 'Nuclear Option'
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
WASHINGTON � Democrats threatened Tuesday to slow or stop most Senate business if Republicans unilaterally change the rules to assure confirmation of President Bush's controversial court appointments.
Any such change would mark "an unprecedented abuse of power," Sen. Harry Reid (search), D-Nev., wrote Majority Leader Bill Frist (search), R-Tenn. "The power to confirm judges includes the right to use well-established Senate rules to reject nominees."
Reid, the Democratic leader, exempted military and national security legislation from the threat, and said his rank and file would not block passage of measures needed to ensure continuation of critical government services.
Republicans rebutted swiftly, Frist in the lead. "To shut down the Senate would be irresponsible and partisan. The solution is simple: Return to 200 years of tradition and allow up or down votes on judges," he said in a written statement.
Reid's letter raised the ante in a long-simmering struggle over Bush's court appointments. Democrats blocked votes on 10 nominees out of the 214 sent by the White House during the last Congress, attacking them as too conservative to warrant lifetime appointments.
Accusing Democrats of obstruction, Republicans sought to make an issue of it in the elections last fall, in which they gained four Senate seats.
Bush has already renominated some of the judges, and Reid has said previously the Democrats' position has not changed.
Thus far, Republicans have not sought a Senate vote this year on any of the judicial appointees whose confirmations Democrats blocked in 2003 and 2004.
But under pressure from conservatives, Republicans have floated the possibility they will change the rules that currently allow a filibuster � meaning supporters of a nominee must gain 60 votes to force a final vote. A formal change in Senate rules requires 67 votes, but in this case, the GOP has mapped a strategy requiring a simple majority to make the change.
There are 55 Republicans in the current Senate.
Both parties have made use of the filibuster rules in the past when in the minority. Reid wrote Frist that Republicans, too, would someday lose a majority, and find themselves needing all the rights the minority currently enjoys.
Apart from the exceptions he outlined in his letter, Reid wrote, "we will be reluctant to enter into any consent agreement that facilitates Senate activities, even on routine matters."
The Senate's rules give strong rights to the minority and, in many cases, permit even an individual senator to interfere with the daily routine of committee meetings, floor debate and votes on legislation.
Reid did not specify the steps he is planning to take if Republicans change the rules, but Democrats said he has a variety of options at his disposal.
Reid offered to work with Frist to improve the procedure in which the president makes nominations and the Senate considers them, "consistent with constitutional checks and balances."
He publicized the letter by appearing on the east steps of the Capitol, across the street from the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist (search) is suffering from thyroid cancer. Democrats and Republicans, anticipating President Bush will have at least one vacancy to fill on the high court, are girding for a monumental confirmation battle.
In his statement, Frist said: "I am committed to getting the work of the American people done in the Senate, which includes advice and consent on the president's judicial nominations as outlined in the Constitution. Never before in the history of the Senate has a nominee with clear majority support been denied an up or down vote on the Senate floor because of a filibuster."
"The Democrats have it backwards," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "They broke with a long-standing tradition of giving judicial nominations that reach the Senate floor an up or down vote, and we simply want to restore that tradition."
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the Judiciary Committee chairman, has declined to express support for a change in the rules but said Reid moved prematurely.
"Since there's no imminent move by the majority leader to move to reduce the filibuster number from 60 to 51, it seemed a little untimely for Senator Reid to make his statement," Specter said. "My focus is to proceed to try to get these judges confirmed and try to work it out, without coming to the confrontation on the constitutional or nuclear option."
Democrats countered that Republicans have long made use of filibusters, circulating a list that said 31 current GOP members of the Senate had voted to block a final confirmation vote on a judge a total of 213 times.
Source |
Alright, this is ridiculous! Just because they may not get there way and be allowed to continue to filibuster JUDICIAL NOMINEES, which is NOT in the Constititution, they have to stop what I, and others, call the CONSTITUTIONAL option? That's just ridiculous!
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:12 am |
|
Shows to tell you Democrats whines about anything if something does not go their way. They need to grow up already.
|
|
|
Jeff Miller
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 22 Nov 2001
Posts: 23947
Location: Mental Ward for the Mentaly Unstable 6th floor, Saint John's 1615 Delaware Longview Washington 98632
|
| Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:31 am |
|
people can say the same about the republicans on certin issues also it would be best to say just to avoid a arguement that both parties need to grow up.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:47 pm |
|
Uh, trying to shut down the Senate? I don't think so. That's RARELY done. And all this over keeping an UNCONSTITUTIONAL thing--filibusters for JUDICIAL NOMINEES--around. I prefer the CONSTITUTIONAL method.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Beta6
Commander
Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 475
Location: ~*City Of Angels*~
|
| Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:52 pm |
|
Yea, r_m... you would 
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:53 pm |
|
| Beta6 wrote: | | Yea, r_m... you would |
Would what? Huh?
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:17 pm |
|
Stupid, stupid move. You'd think they'd learn sometime that these types of things are extremely unflattering to the party...of, course, they haven't.
-------signature-------
Not the doctor... yet
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:24 pm |
|
| Beta6 wrote: | | Yea, r_m... you would |
As he should. Everything should be constitutional. That's the whole point of having it,
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:35 pm |
|
The usual republican tactic. Blame democrats for wanting to keep something that predates most people alive.
The filibuster has been used by both parties for a long time. It is a constitutional method. Now Republicans want to change that.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:39 pm |
|
Oooh, stereotyping,  (by both sides), isn't it looooooovely?
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:41 pm |
|
| Theresa wrote: | | Oooh, stereotyping, (by both sides), isn't it looooooovely? |
Yes, a lovely thing.
To bad it's true. 
|
|
|
Seven of Nine
Sammie's Mammy
Joined: 16 Jun 2001
Posts: 7871
Location: North East England
|
| Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:42 pm |
|
Soo amusing, especially for someone from the UK, where it's normally individual people are attacked
And when certain people confuse what the US calls conservative with the Conservative party over here... (who can and do have some liberal policies... they have to )
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:00 pm |
|
| Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | The usual republican tactic. Blame democrats for wanting to keep something that predates most people alive.
The filibuster has been used by both parties for a long time. It is a constitutional method. Now Republicans want to change that. |
It was a vote that doesn't even require a super-majority. All the candidates were confirmed by the bar association, and a filibuster has never been used on judicial nominees. Is this type of action pro-choice? I don't think so.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:46 pm |
|
| Exalya wrote: | | Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | The usual republican tactic. Blame democrats for wanting to keep something that predates most people alive.
The filibuster has been used by both parties for a long time. It is a constitutional method. Now Republicans want to change that. |
It was a vote that doesn't even require a super-majority. All the candidates were confirmed by the bar association, and a filibuster has never been used on judicial nominees. Is this type of action pro-choice? I don't think so. |
EXACTLY. ONLY under the Bush administration has a filibuster been used on judicial nominees--prior to him, it had never been done before. It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to put a filibuster on judicial nominees. I'm not, like other Republicans, for getting rid of the filibuster, just on judicial nominees.
And Exalya, pro-choice only applies to reproductive rights  (Sarcasm, but that's what 2 Liberal teachers told me Really, you're right.)
Now Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and Harry Reid's tirades about this today--outrageous!
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Thu Mar 17, 2005 12:47 am |
|
Filibusters are just hissy fits of the minority. Although I may agree with their motives, I can't agree with their trying to delay the legislative process. In democratic majority rule, one person or a small group should not be allowed to delay proceedings just because they can. That applies to Democrats, Republicans, and everyone else.
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Thu Mar 17, 2005 2:39 am |
|
Before you go and say "The Reupblicans would do the same", ponder this:
In the mid-90's Clinton had a supreme court nomination to fill. He chose, quite possibly, the most Liberal Justice to ever serve in Ruth Bader Ginsburg. At the time, the Republicans in Senate and in the house, allowed this to happen, since it is constitutionally Clinton's right to do so.
This is a dirty game by the left. They really should play by the same rules that the right does.
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:07 am |
|
I agree, but give them some credit. They're at a disadvantage, trying to defend what they think is right. It isn't easy to represent your constituents when you're outnumbered by your opposition.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:13 pm |
|
Same exact situation for the Republicans in the instance Lightning Boy already mentioned.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Mar 17, 2005 4:12 pm |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | Before you go and say "The Reupblicans would do the same", ponder this:
In the mid-90's Clinton had a supreme court nomination to fill. He chose, quite possibly, the most Liberal Justice to ever serve in Ruth Bader Ginsburg. At the time, the Republicans in Senate and in the house, allowed this to happen, since it is constitutionally Clinton's right to do so.
This is a dirty game by the left. They really should play by the same rules that the right does. |
You are right. In the 90s they didn't allow 60 judges to get through. However, was it by filibustering? NO. This has NEVER happened before and is NOT one of the 7 cases for a super-majority discussed in the Constitution, nor for a filibuster.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
