Senate GOP Set to Go 'Nuclear' Over Judges

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/112904Z.shtml

Senate GOP Set to Go 'Nuclear' Over Judges
By Chuck Lindell
The Cox News Service

Sunday 28 November 2004

Washington - Senate Republicans, boldly confident after their Nov. 2 electoral success, are preparing to end months of frustrating delays over President Bush's judicial picks by hitting Democrats with Republican's ultimate legislative weapon.

But the Republican threat to neuter long-cherished filibuster rules by steamrolling Democrats is risky - so potentially destructive that Capitol Hill calls it the "nuclear option." Democratic retaliation would be swift and long-lasting, raising the prospect of escalating clashes in a body that prides itself on gentility and cool judgment.

Even so, Republican leaders are signaling their intent to go nuclear in word and deed.

We're going to use every tool we possibly can," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., who also unveiled a kinder, gentler phrase for the potential rules change: the "constitutional option."

..more..

Hehehehe.

ROFLOL!!

Thanks so much for that. I need a good chuckle these days!

:yourock:

x(

How many votes do they need to change the filibuster rule and then, if they succeed, what exactly can the Dems do to fight back?

Frist and co. are proving themselves to be fascists if they go ahead with their 'nuclear' tactic. Some will praise them for doing this, but they are either blind, stupid, or simply aggressive - in any case, too immature and animalistic to understand what democracy and compromise are all about.

... while the republicans have a majority. That's like leaving the kids in a candy shop, or an elephant in a china shop. That would leave the repulicans unfettered to do as they want.

Elepaphant in China. That is a good pun.

That will be easy for them.

The Senate does most of its business behind the scenes, coming to agreement on issues before a floor debate. Alot of bills are simply agreed to without a roll call vote. Democrats will put a stop to all that (unless Reid backs down, which would not surprise me). Democrats would demand a roll call for every minor thing and tie them up for weeks. They will also step up the number of filibusters they can use. In theory they could keep anything from happening all session, trying to get the Republicans to back down.

Unfortunately I have no doubt the Democrats will again display their spinelessness and back down...they always do.

Does anyone know for sure? Thanks.

They are simply going to reinterpret them. The person presiding over the Senate will rule that the 60% rule does not apply to judicial nominations. The Democrats will appeal this ruling, and the appeal will be put to a vote. The vote will go the GOP's way.

that there is no possible interpretation of Rule XXII that justifies this.

Read it for yourself:

Rule XXII(2). Notwithstanding the provisions of rule II or rule IV or any other rule of the Senate, at any time a motion signed by sixteen Senators, to bring to a close the debate upon any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, is presented to the Senate, the Presiding Officer, or clerk at the direction of the Presiding Officer, shall at once state the motion to the Senate, and one hour after the Senate meets on the following calendar day but one, he shall lay the motion before the Senate and direct that the clerk call the roll, and upon the ascertainment that a quorum is present, the Presiding Officer shall, without debate, submit to the Senate by a yea-and-nay vote the question:

"Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.

Thereafter no Senator shall be entitled to speak in all more than one hour on the measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, the amendments thereto, and motions affecting the same, and it shall be the duty of the Presiding Officer to keep the time of each Senator who speaks. Except by unanimous consent, no amendment shall be proposed after the vote to bring the debate to a close, unless it had been submitted in writing to the Journal Clerk by 1 o'clock p.m. on the day following the filing of the cloture motion if an amendment in the first degree, and unless it had been so submitted at least one hour prior to the beginning of the cloture vote if an amendment in the second degree. No dilatory motion, or dilatory amendment, or amendment not germane shall be in order. Points of order, including questions of relevancy, and appeals from the decision of the Presiding Officer, shall be decided without debate.

After no more than thirty hours of consideration of the measure, motion, or other matter on which cloture has been invoked, the Senate shall proceed, without any further debate on any question, to vote on the final disposition thereof to the exclusion of all amendments not then actually pending before the Senate at that time and to the exclusion of all motions, except a motion to table, or to reconsider and one quorum call on demand to establish the presence of a quorum (and motions required to establish a quorum) immediately before the final vote begins. The thirty hours may be increased by the adoption of a motion, decided without debate, by a threefifths affirmative vote of the Senators duly chosen and sworn, and any such time thus agreed upon shall be equally divided between and controlled by the Majority and Minority Leaders or their designees. However, only one motion to extend time, specified above, may be made in any one calendar day.

If, for any reason, a measure or matter is reprinted after cloture has been invoked, amendments which were in order prior to the reprinting of the measure or matter will continue to be in order and may be conformed and reprinted at the request of the amendment's sponsor. The conforming changes must be limited to lineation and pagination.

No Senator shall call up more than two amendments until every other Senator shall have had the opportunity to do likewise.

Notwithstanding other provisions of this rule, a Senator may yield all or part of his one hour to the majority or minority floor managers of the measure, motion, or matter or to the Majority or Minority Leader, but each Senator specified shall not have more than two hours so yielded to him and may in turn yield such time to other Senators.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this rule, any Senator who has not used or yielded at least ten minutes, is, if he seeks recognition, guaranteed up to ten minutes, inclusive, to speak only.

After cloture is invoked, the reading of any amendment, including House amendments, shall be dispensed with when the proposed amendment has been identified and has been available in printed form at the desk of the Members for not less than twenty four hours.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/Standing_Rules_Senate.htm#22

"Without objection ..." Object.

The floor business of the Senate is thoroughly infused with such departures from and suspension of the rules. From the reading of the minutes to the successive readings by the clerk of marked-up legislation to permission to "revise and extend remarks," both the Senate and the House habitually take the "fast-track" around their own procedures and rules.

If the totalitarian one-party Reichpublicans employ the "nuclear option" it'll be the obligation of the Democratic minority to dissent and deny each and every departure from the rules, requiring votes, extending debate where debate is permitted, and denying any privileges of rules suspension whatsoever to any member of those who'd turn our government into a one-party system.

Require numerous roll call votes? That will also require Democratic Senators to come to the Senate chamber for these votes every few minutes. I don't think they would want to do that, as it would be a big pain in the ass for members of BOTH parties.

I guess they wouldn't want to give up some comforts. :shrug:

The judges would already be approved at that point.

The Constitution doesn't adequately address filibusters, so Dick Cheney is just going to uhhhh reinterpret the procedure. It is called the nuclear option because if one side chooses to take advantage of the loophole, it is highly likely that the other side will do it as well when they have a majority.

pretend that the filibuster rule does not apply to judicial nominations. To do that they will need only 51 votes.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_11/005136.php

It also explains how the Republicans are lying about what brought about the whole issue in the first place. Had the Republicans not changed the rules about how judicial nominees come up for a vote in order to obstruct Clinton's nominees and then changed them again to smooth the way for Bush's, the filibuster would not be the only weapon available to the Dems. The Republican power grab has been going on for a long time, and this is just the endgame.

In my opinion, the nuclear option plus Hastert's proposed plan to stop any Democratic bills from ever coming to the floor of the House, render the Legislative Branch a one party body. The Democrats, House and Senate, should walk out, every single one of them, and go home to their districts and states and start holding town hall meetings in every city and town. They have to explain in plain English to the people that the Republicans are mad with power and are destroying Democracy as we know it.

and one that just might resonate with the electorate. At least until folks started bringing up examples of democrats doing pretty much the same damn thing when THEY were in power!

I think that legislators should be forced to hold town hall style meetings on a regular basis in order to keep connected to the wishes of those who sent them to Washington in the first place.

Without using a search engine (too freakin early in the morning)I believe that Democrats have helped confirm over 100 of Bush's judicial nominees and blocked only four...much smoke and mirrors here.

If all the elected Democratic officials went home, held town meetings and let people know what's going on, started drafting slates of candidates for 2006 and training them and running a real grass roots campaign for everything from Clerk to Dogcatcher, not only would the GOP start pleading for them to come back to DC, but we might actually have a democracy back in 4 years!

I seem to recall a poster some months ago (perhaps a year)who was a strong advocate for such an idea, one that began to take hold with many here, at least until that poster began to espouse some rather radical ideas about the CIA and the whole thing disintegrated.....

... lies in the nature of the 'supermajority' required to change the rules of the Senate.

We need to pay close attention to the terms used to describe 'supermajorities.'

• To invoke cloture, a 'supermajority' of "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn" (whether present or not) is required.
• To change the Senate rules, a 'supermajority' of "two-thirds of the Senators present and voting" is required.

Thus, if 34 Senators are boycotting the Senate, leaving 66 Senators attending the session, it would only take 44 Senators (2/3 of those present) voting in the affirmative to change the rules of the Senate.

That dems have obstructed bushco's judicial picks. They've actually filibustered only 9 or 10 in 4 years. Even when Leahy was chairman, they were supportive of the vast majority of bush's choices. If the thugs exercise the so-called nuclear option, the dems should walk. There's no point to playing on a field that uneven.

We're still waiting for the Democratic senators to do what they "should" do.

God, I hope Daschle has figured out that he was a damn fool playing nice over Florida and since. Does anyone think he's learned that much?

to Dem's. I fear it is not and uh, no he did not learn such a vast lesson in such a short period of time. His TV ads featured pics of him and the 1600 occupier so he could win in a more conservative state.

sp

He's been a public servant for South Dakota for 26 years, introducted over 400 pieces of legislature, and LOST to a man who's been a Rep for 6 years and didn't even introduce ONE SINGLE bill.

Daschle would have lost no matter what ads he ran, or how he acted.
South Dakotans are stupid when it comes to politics, and are easily swayed. I should know. I was born there and watched the stupidity all around me. (I moved east to Minnesota when for college, and never left.)

nominees confirmed of any president in modern history. Higher than Clinton, or even Reagan who had a republican Senate most of the time. In just one term Bush already has appointed the same percentage of all federal district judges as Clinton appointed in two terms.

Do you have a link that gives the stats on that? I would love to look into this more. Also the names of those filibustered?

Thanks.:bounce:

. . .

Ninety-Five Percent Of Bush's Nominees Brought Up for a Floor Vote Confirmed, Higher Than The 81 Percent Confirmed During Clinton's First Four Years.

The high number of judicial confirmations reflects the significant work of the Senate in considering President Bush's judicial nominees. President Bush's judicial nominees have been confirmed at a rate better than or equal to his recent predecessors in their first or only terms in office.

HISTORICAL COMPARISON:

CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT COURT NOMINEES DURING THE FIRST FOUR YEARS

President
Total Nominees Submitted
Total Nominees Confirmed
Percent of Nominees Confirmed

G.W. Bush
211 brought up for a floor vote
201
95%

Clinton
246
200
81%

G.H.W. Bush
250
192
77%

Reagan
185
163
88%

Only Seven Nominees Blocked

Democrats have used the filibuster sparingly, rejecting only a handful of judicial nominees. These are individuals whose records and statements indicate a tendency to place personal philosophy above the law. They are individuals who either have drawn opposition from noted figures in both political parties, have been found to be unqualified by non-partisan reviews, have raised serious ethical concerns, or have troubling records on a number of important issues, including civil rights, consumer protections, and First Amendment freedoms. In some cases, all of these concerns apply. In contrast, Republicans blocked confirmation votes on more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees (including nearly two dozen Circuit Court nominees).

. . .

http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-doc.cfm?doc_name=fs-108-2-282

The names of filibustered nominees are readily available from Reich Wing republican sites. Here is a different perspective on the filibustering of judicial nominees. http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=12694

and bush make some more recess appointments.

I am so sick of this crap.

I laughed "we will use every tool we can". Let's see... there's the lieberman tool; the breaux tool (though he is leaving), etc. etc.

No more "bipartisan" bullshit.
Bring it on!

Americans have a innate dislike of bullies and that's exactly how the GOP is acting. "Hey assholes, your "Nov. 2 electoral success" was really minimal and all you have to do is alienate a few more voters and then you're toast!"

:evilgrin:

they ever learn?

just exactly what in the fuck do you expect them to do besides bitch? Be specific, please. I hear this shit and hear it and hear it and not a single individual I have found who utters it has any fucking suggestion whatsoever.

I'd give my fucking SOUL just to see one prominent Democrat refer to the GOP using the same terms they use when describing us:

"phony" "Criminal" "liars" "immoral" "Untrustworthy"

And BACK IT UP with current examples. THEN ask the "journalist" WHY they have not covered the said examples.

And do it ON TV where people can actually hear it.

it's been awhile, but that was one night the house dems stood up to the fight!

If they think Al Gore or Clinton are "liars"- they SAY SO. And they do it ON TV.

If they think Kerry is a "flip flopper" or a "traitor" who "faked his medals" they SAY SO. On TV.

And they NEVER back down or apologize.

And guess what, they WIN. Not just once either, but every time.

I'm not even asking DEMS to MAKE SHIT UP like the GOP does, I'm just asking that they tell the truth about the GOP.

Sorry, got the reply on the wrong post. Dems will be divided and conquered in the first week of the new congress. Dems can not hang together.

Robinson, Dobson and the rest of the ayatollahs and Imams of the radical right are telling them to do, which is to set this country back to the middle ages.

I watched a group of radicals on Meet the Press this AM, and they are dangerous, scary people. They despise anyone who is not in lockstep with the bible the way it was written 2000 years ago.

There is no reason, no logic, just mindless dogma.

Thank you.

yeah, right, whatever. :eyes:

two words:

freedom fries

what time-warp is this writer living in?

If Republicans are going to go nuclear, then the Democrats need to retaliate in kind. Threaten them with MAD (mutually assured destruction). Call their bluff. Walk out. Refuse to do any work. Get tough folks.

Direct democracy. Let the citizens step in where the opposing party fails to do so. Many of these issues affect moderates on both sides of the party. Examples: Supreme Court judge appointments; tax reform; social security reform; "preemptive attacks" on terrorist countries.

If the left-leaning organizations bonded with moderate organizations on common issue-related goals, the combination of the membership would be spread among many states. Once it is discovered that a Senator was backing the "nuclear" approach in railroading an extremist right-wing agenda, that Senator could be targeted by the combined membership. This would mean an immediate response in that Senator's state, including advertisements directed to the citizens of that state against which the proposed legislative would be counter-beneficial to the citizens' best interests, protests, letters, faxes and emails would hit in a blitz -- the "nuclear" blitz from hell. Just as, for example, Fritz targeted Daschle and took him out, let the citizens unite to target Fritz both in DC but more importantly in front of the eyes and ears of the citizens of Tennessee when he backs an extremist reform.

Both sides can play this game.

in both houses need our backing if they are to stand up against these issues. We need to email them and tell them in plain logical language what we want of them - fight back - and then when they do we need to let ourselves be heard in more places than just on these boards. Protests, letters, fliers, etc. The campaign for democracy is not ended - it has just begun.

How fucking silly can you get? The gops have a quorum without us and they can do whatever they want to do. What the hell can we actually do?

Relinquish the field? Yeah, that would show 'em.

about relinquishing the field. We just change the playing field to include the whole USA. We are already being isolated in the congress when we have no say in what bills come to the floor, when we are denied the filibuster, when we are kept from speaking on the floor, when the media ignores everything we say, when we have no chance to stop bills by our vote. I would say it is time for "guerrilla" politics, politics at the grassroots. We make the playing field where WE are at. This should ONLY be done if we are truly denied a role in governing by the actions of the repugs, but it may become necessary. We the people can act now - we do not have to wait until Dems are totally silence in the halls of congress.

:eyes:

From the post to which I replied: "Call their bluff. Walk out. Refuse to do any work."

If that isn't relinquishing the field, what is it?

Dems see nukes as a last, desparate shot, a weapon of last resort, brought out when there is no other option.

Repukes see it as a first strike weapon that will give them an unassailable advantage. They never believed in the concept of MAD.

They want to turn the Senate into the partisan battleground that the House is. It's a good thing that walking sticks are no longer fashionable.

The Constitution requires the Senate to provide "advise and consent" on judicial appointments, as part of the checks and balances. It does NOT requiree the Senate to rubber-stamp any wacko the Asshole from Crawford nominates.

Someone need to straighten Bill Frist out. Actually, they needed to straighten him out back when he was "experimenting" on cats in med school.

... and it will happen. The Republicans have absolutely no problem with destroying this country, so long at it ensures their total and absolute uber-authority.

I want to start seeing some ass-kicking once the Republicans decide to go nuclear. Literally. Fuck this decorum shit. The Republicans don't give a shit about decorum.

It's cage match time, kids.

what in the hell do you want them to do? Be specific, please.

I want Ted Kennedy, Evan Bayh, Pat Leahy, or someone who could be re-elected if they shanked their grandmother to throw some chairs in the Senate, beat Rick Santorum with a cane, and raise hell about what's happening. Not only are the brakes off and the checks and balances non-existent, there is no road beneath us and democracy is in a free fall.

That was what Bob Kerrey asserted once in a hearing. Great line.

Since it looks like we are going to have two choices, and neither one of them gives us any ability to stand in the way of the Republican juggernaut, I think Democrats in the House and Senate should take the path of greatest resistance.

Granted, I'm dreaming here.

It might be to our benefit if the Senate dems took a vacation to Ottowa for a few months until Frist gets his finger off the nuclear button.

But I believe that the Rethugs can force the absent members to come back:

"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide"

The quorum in the U.S. Senate is 51 - the Repubs will have 55 Senators. They won't even have to rely on Rule VI to do business.

Send the Texas National Guard to hogtie every Senate Dem and drag them back to DC from a pick-em-up truck.

Also, Chaffee will be along side the Democrats in this battle, so you have 46 Senators to vote NO on this rule!

(see my other post, #38, below)

They have a coup d'etat mandate.

when the Dems are back in power, as inevitably the pendulum WILL swing. Maybe not in 2006, or even 2008. But it WILL swing. And we have a long fucking memory.

So fuck 'em. Let them have their little party. Destroy America. It will crash in on them.

Bake

Electronic vote fraud will NEVER let us back in power if it isn't fixed.

Hell, most those guys are still fighting the civil war.

Currently, the Senate requires 60 votes to pass a cloture motion, i.e. end a debate before a vote. (In the past, 67 votes were required.) A filibuster is merely prolonged debate. Not every vote allows debate. A motion to adjourn, for example, is not debatable, nor is a cloture motion itself or a challenge to a ruling of the presiding officer of the Senate. It's the latter (a ruling from the 'chair') that's the core of the 'nuclear option.'

Scenario: A Senator makes a motion to Consent to a Judicial nomination. The Democrats begin debate, with the intention of filibustering. A Reichpublican Senator makes a cloture motion (not debatable) and the vote is less than 60% but greater than 50% in favor. The President of the Senate (Cheney, or Ted Stevens as President Pro-Tem) rules that the motion passes, ruling that a cloture motion only requires a 50% vote when it regards a Judicial nomination. The Democrats challenge the ruling. There's a vote to confirm or overturn the ruling, which only requires a majority. The Reichpublicans constitute a majority and vote in favor of the ruling. The cloture vote passes (now by a mere majority, according to the ruling) and there's a vote to confirm the nomination ... which passes.

See http://www.changeforamerica.com/community/node/view/1919
and http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/confirmation_watch/nuclear_option.htm
and http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=11019

do not see many ways to counter this except for perhaps perpetual points of order. IOW, like so much of what these rat-bastard sons of bitches do, it is patently illegal and simultaneously not possible legally to stop.

:nuke:

... regarding the Constitutional legitimacy of the Senate's rules regarding supermajorities on various procedural matters. The argument that there are only a few Constitutionally enumerated (and exclusive) instances where supermajorities are required totally ignores the fact that the Constitution is deliberately silent on Senate procedural matters except insofar as granting exclusive authority for such procedural rules to the Senate itself. These supermajority requirements are not on matters of legislation or confirmation, but are solely procedural in substance. Thus, the enumerative exclusivity principle just doesn't apply.

but, I am going to watch a movie, I hope the "tools" of power don't obfuscate your objectivity. I have always respected your posts. I just don't understand why you wish to avoid the "constitutional" issues.

Respectfully,

coreystone

I adamantly disagree with the supposedly 'Constitutional' arguments posed by Professors Erwin Chemerinsky and Catherine Fisk and others that are founded on the seven Constitutionally enumerated instances where a supermajority is required and the simultaneous use of the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius. What this argument fails to note is that all seven instances are with regards to the Senate's express power to legislate and effect another branch of government or the nation itself.

Indeed, the Constitution is careful in this regard, limiting its prescriptions to only those matters that directly relate to the Senate's external impact. When, however, the matters relate to the Senate's power over its own procedures and practices (i.e. its rules), the Constitution is deliberately silent, according to the Senate (and the House) exclusive authority over its own procedures. This, in my view, nullifies the application of the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

I don't think this is rocket science. (Maybe I'm missing something?) In essence, I'm more in general agreement to the argument cited in the Findlaw article under the heading "The Argument for the Filibuster's Constitutionality."

Further, I'm very wary whenever the power of a legislative body to overturn something done by a simple majority requires a supermajority. Under the Constitution, the Senate can only remove an appointed official (in concert with the House) by a 2/3 vote ... an official that can be confirmed by a bare majority. I tend to favor symmetry in the powers of do/undo. Thus, if 2/3 are required to 'undo', it seems to me that 2/3 should be required to 'do'. Further, I'm very wary of populist tyranny - where bare majorities can supppress minorities. I thus tend to favor more extensive requirements for legislative supermajorities, even when Democrats are "in charge."

:shrug:

than blocking them with a fillibuster? Over 100 Clinton judicial nominees were denied a floor vote by the GOP judiciary committee. Democrats have picked maybe 10 of Bush's WORST judges (there are probably dozens more that shouldn't be on the bench) and fillibustered them. Unfortunately the average joe-schmo doesn't understand or give a shit about senate rules and thus we can't demonize the GOP for this.

Which I hope clarifies a perspective of what is possible for the Republicans to override the 60% in a filibuster. Since this is LBN, I will briefly point out some points, without violating the "four paragraph rule".

Link: http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/amar/20030613.html

With a Potential Supreme Court Nomination At Stake,
Questions of The Filibuster's Constitutionality Linger

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR


<snip

"The resulting "filibuster" can ordinarily be stopped only by a "cloture" vote, which requires 60 of the 100 Senators (a supermajority) to vote to end debate, and bring the bill or nomination to a final vote."
snip>

<snip

"Moreover, the Constitution, in Article I, section 5, anticipates that the House and Senate will make rules beyond those set forth in the Constitution, and specifically gives them authority to do so: "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings." And, aren't the filibuster rule and companion cloture vote rule just these types of procedural rules? Remember, when a filibuster is ongoing, the cloture rule technically requires a supermajority to end debate - a procedural occurrence - not a supermajority to enact the legislation or approve the nomination in question."
snip>

<snip
"Yet Another Supermajority Rule Comes Under Fire

In any case, one might wonder, why don't filibuster opponents just switch, rather than fight? Why don't they just change the Senate cloture rule itself?

Because that, too, would require a supermajority vote, according to another provision in the Senate Rules. Rule XXII by its terms provides that any motion to amend the Senate Rules requires the agreement of two thirds present and voting. If all 100 Senators are present, 67 votes would thus be needed."

snip>

Link (Again): http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/amar/20030613.html

"That brings us to the crux of the issue: Must a majority of each new Senate have the power to revisit the Rules made by a majority of Senators at an earlier time? Is that what "each House" means? Put another way, does each Senate at every point in time have the power to determine, by its own simple majority, its own rules? Or can past Senates bind themselves, and future Senates, by adopting supermajority rules concerning rule amendment, such as the one in Rule XXII?

Right now, this issue is crucial. Currently, there may exist a majority in the Senate in favor of altering both the rule about rule changes, and the cloture rule, to make filibusters in judicial nominations less easy. If this working Senate majority is able to change the filibuster rules to bring nominations to the floor of the Senate, then virtually all of the President's judicial nominations will likely sail through, and the federal judiciary will be changed for a long time to come.

More generally, this kind of temporal question - can a past Senate be able to entrench its own rules and bind future Senates? - resonates with important, larger Constitutional themes. I will unpack this very important entrenchment idea, and its broad-ranging implications, in my next column in this series."


Does Mr. Amar, indeed, assert that the "ENTIRE" body of Senate Rules have validity in future "sessions" of the "House of the Senate"? That notion would negate any Rules of any Senate from each two year session to each two year session going back to 1787. This would indicate that "EVERY RULE" of that body would have to re-institute ALL rules that had been passed before; thus negating every rule that the Senate had passed for their conduct back to the the US Constitution. I find it hard to believe that every time that the Senate "changes hands" that our founding fathers would "bind future Senates" to not be bound by the cumulative work of the Senate in the future. I do note that XXII was passed by a "simple" majority of greater than 50%. I understand that the 2/3 perspective of overturning any house rule would be subject to interpreting the "definition" of the "Senate House", however, I do not interpret the founding fathers "allowance" of the body of the Senate to "re- institute" their rules on each election cycle.

I feel that this is a very important notion to keep in mind! It is not only about how this administration and this Senate relate to the rules regarding "Supreme Court Nominations and Endorsements", it is about the entire body of rules which the Senate operates in performing "day to day" BUSINESS!

:-)

The Senate considers itself a "continuing body". Therefore, the "Standing Rules of the Senate" (as they are known) remain in effect between sessions of Congress - they are only changed when they are amended.

This is unlike the House, which has to re-adopt its rules every Congress.

It's called the nuclear option for a reason.

I'll believe that when I see it.

Democrats will allow the GOP/media to define this as they ALWAYS do. They will be slapped and they will pretend to like it.

Perhaps they will "say somthing" but thats about it.

Flame me, but I would rather be proved wrong. Oh-yeah- yeah- I know- its "rope a dope" or "giving them enough rope to hang themsleves with" yeah- uh huh.

Call me back when prominent Democrats are ON TV calling these bastards "liars" (and using that fucking word) for saying they were for "uniting" the country.

... and apply it liberally to their posterior orifices as they bow and expose their backsides. Such is now the ascendant power of petrochemicals in the Senate. Such is now the meaning of "liberal" in that body. Such is now the meaning of "cooperation."

the anger produced by this possible action may not be worth the payback that will inevitably come in the future. Republicans better think long and hard about the road they take on this.

You cant do it-b/c it never happens.

I've been waiting for YEARS to see DEMS take on tyhr GOP- they are always scared about what the fucking media willsay about them.

DEMS wont do shit. They will take it and they will like it.

and that's all well and good, but guess what, Dems hold everything up and do you REALLY think the people are going to say...Go Dems?

Baloney, the Repubs will spin it as the Dems obstructing while they are trying to "get work done for the people", Fox News will sell it by the minute, and the rest of the networks will try too hard to present it "neutrally" for us to get ANY positive press out of this.

The bottom line is, WE failed to get enough of our Dem candidates elected, our candidates failed in getting elected, and now we are paying the price.

We need to start looking at whatever we can do to get people elected. If they have to run as "Zell millers" in Oklahoma or Georgia then thats what they run as, if they have to run as moderates, then thats what they run as, whatever it takes to win the elections.

And that means we start being more practical and more cut-throat and less concerned about "purity" and more about winning. Because the Repubs certainly act that way, and they win.

We need to start winning. Quite frankly, in the next two years, maybe longer, I dont know WHAT we will be able to do. Filibuster, stop all bills, well, is that going to last for four years? No federal budget for four years? Get real. That isnt going to happen.

The Repubs know that sooner or later, they will get their way, because they control the majority and that sooner or later, the Dems will be forced to pass bills or else all of the great programs we like wont get funded, national security wont get funded, the troops wont get funded, etc etc etc.

It's an empty threat over the long term, and they know it.
I have no joy in this outlook, its going to REALLY suck to see conservative judges even moreso take over and ruin the progress we have made for over a generation!

And sure I would love to see any way possible to reduce that, but quite frankly, I dont see how in the short term.

I'm glad to see some here (1 at least) is thinking like I am.

We need to focus on GETTING PEOPLE ELECTED.

NOT on petty vindictiveness that will only earn us a backlash. And certainly NOT on "recounts" that give us a .000001% chance of reversing a decision that would, if successful, give us a President Kerry elected despite losing the popular vote by 3 million plus, and only after an unbelieveable divisive court battle.

What sort of credibility will we have with this kind of phyrric victory after telling the country (and rightfully so) for 4 years that W had no mandate because he lost the popular vote by 500,000 votes.

Lets get real people. Time to look at 2006 (NOT 2008...we don't need to look back, but, please, let's not look TOO far ahead either!)

AT

if Dems ever win back the majority, since the precedent will be there to use the nuke option.

Thats the ONLY "payback" however that I see possible, and from what I can see, we have zero chance of winning back the senate in the next four years.

Folks...we are witnessing a coup d'etat in progress. Bush's fraudulent grab of the Presidency in 2000 was the first step, the slime and sleaze thrown out this past election is the second step. The Repug takeover of Congress and exerting brute force to implement their agenda is the third step. Finally, when the judiciary is fully fascified, then the deed will be complete. They will be able to do whatever they want to without worrying about screams or whimpers from us blue state hippy pinkos.

The mistake that the Dems have been making since 1992 is in continuing to view the Repugs as a party on the American model. It has now transitioned into a party on the Communist, Nazi or Fascist model. They engage in brute force to get their way both with their own members and with the outside world.

I'm afraid that unless the Center, the Left, Progressives, Democrats and others open their eyes and figure out what's going on and quick, then we're in for a very rough ride. I can foresee the criminalization certainly of abortion, of homosexuality, of many types of scientific investigation and of course of dissent itself. Once they grab the brass ring, they ain't likely to want to give it up.

why have two parties? If the Democrats can't even fight for our survival, why the hell should I waste my vote on them again?

Republicans are honest hypocrites, they used the filibuster in 1993 to block universal healthcare..now they wish to end the filibuster.

Those idiots are ruining everything. Congress is supposed to work together, to find a balance, not to try and obliterate everyone who doesn't agree with you.

They won't be in power forever and what goes around comes around. This behavior is simply destructive and will take a long time to heal.

read today's article about the perils of overreaching. This is exactly the payback I was speaking of. The huge potential of bringing their own house down by pissing off the electorate and moderate congressional Republicans with their half-baked social and economic reform schemes. With minority status, I don't pretend to believe the Dem's can effectively block legislation. However, when the dust settles, it will be up to the Dems to fix it. I firmly believe this administration will in the end be it's own worst enemy.

If you want ammo on Frist, just read up on medicare fraud and the HCA hospital consortium founded by his family. How many seniors would be pleased to know his trust fund comes from bilking their healthcare system?