Graham to File Suit Challenging Filibuster; Senate in All Night

http://www.rollcall.com/

With the Senate set to stay in session debating the judicial confirmation process until 9 a.m. Friday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) announced Thursday that he and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) are filing a lawsuit against the Senate in an attempt to force the Supreme Court to overrule the use of a filibuster to block a president’s judicial nominations.

Are the rules of the Senate subject to litigation????

some serious problems for the rethugs in the future as well.

The Constitution says the senate can make their own rules. But, if those rules were to violates some other part of the Constitution then they could probably be overturned. For instance, the Senate couldn't ban black senators (not that there are any) from speaking on the floor or something like that.

This suit has no legal merit though. It is an idiotic suit. No constitutional scholar of any intelligence agrees with Lindsey Graham on this one. They had a hearing in the Rule and Administration Committee and Trent Lott was practically begging the witnesses to say that it was unconstitutional.

It would be a major seperation of powers issues though. I thought republicans were the ones that thought the courts should be limited in power. I guess I was wrong there.

majority. For the spoiled murderous brat who is squatting in Al Gores White House.
Peace
Wildman
Al Gore is My President

But then again... well, let me just say Bush v. Gore.

the Florida thingy.

Lindsey Graham tried with all his might to hang Clinton. What makes this man so popular with the republicans. I don't get it! I watched his press conference tonight with Coleman and Santorum hanging all over Graham like he was a god.

Think about it, if the SCOTUS takes this case they would be opening a Pandoras box.

If they rule in favor of Graham, then the people of the US would have the ability to file lawsuits against the Congress. One example could be family members of those that have died in Iraq and could file a wrongful death claim against Congress.

Remember it was Congress that authorized the use of force against Iraq, resulting in the deaths of military personnel. The authorization was based on old intel reports and lies that Shrub told
his cronies in Congress.

And the big picture would be for any group that did not agree with a
bill that the Congress passed to file lawsuits.

The only positive answer would be to take the case and not only rule against them, but rule that the majority cannot chagne the rules. And they won't rule that way.

If they don't take the case, the "nuclear option" becomes poltically less damaging. If they DO take the case, they could rule against us - the Constitution CAN be interpreted to say that only 51 votes are needed and you can't filibuster.

There aren't enough votes to get it passed. The republicans would love to do it but they have to get almost every republican to vote with them and they won't. I believe that they need 51 votes and I don't think the Vice President can vote. They will get Zell Miller to go with them and maybe Ben Nelson but I kind of doubt it. So, just one or two republicans can stop it and I don't think that moderate republicans like Lincoln Chafee and Olympia Snowe want to do this to get right wing extremists on the bench. Also, some other senators might actually care about senate traditions and not want to change the rules by the nuclear option. There only has to be a few.

How are they voting on the filibuster now?

It's a party issue. They would certainly say "I wouldn't vote to confirm him/her, but (s)he ought to get a vote".

And, yes, the Vice President does get a vote.

As for your final point? The rules get changed all the time. The currect "tradition" of the non-filibuster-filibuster was started in the 80's. Besides... their point is that they AREN'T changing the rules. There IS NO rule about filibustering appointees. They want to "interpret" the existing rule.

I think changing a rule COULD be filibustered.

and these fuckers call themselves conservatives?

actually, they are radical fascists.

...and it has nothing to do with democracy. The Senate is not a democratic institution, otherwise a state like Wyoming would have about two tenths of a seat.

You're right Kodi, it's all about fascism. It's all about single-party control of everything. I just can't understand why they don't just form a politboro and be done with it.

This isn't about what it seems to be.

1) It's about making the judicial filibusters a political issue next year in SC and GA (you think it's coincidence which senators brought it up?) for the elections. It cements shrub's hold on the south AND virtually guarantees a republican takeover of those two seats. Why do you think they didn't "go 'nukular'" so far? They want the issue for their base.

2) They WANT the Court to say "Senate rules are made by the Senate, we have no jurisdiction here" because it allows them to "go nuclear" without the political backlash they would get otehrwise. Senate rules are set by a majority and while they CAN be filibustered when set... they CAN'T be filibustered when INTERPRETED. They will use the Court decision as grounds to interpret the rules to say you can't filibuster judges... and then WE will be unable to appeal it with the Court because the issue has already been decided - and we gave it to them.

Republicans are becoming such a parody of themselves. They're trying to break a filibuster that is keeping conservative judges off the bench because the Democratic congress is convinced that the four judges are too political to rule fairly on the bench. And how do the Republicans try to break the filibuster? By filing a lawsuit that will land the case in the lap of the same conservative-leaning Supreme Court that broke all the rules and selected George Bush. hahahahaha! Lindsey is so stupid that he probably doesn't see the irony.

Remembering the adage "when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging", it would be funny if we could all send these idiots shovels so they can keep on digging.

Anybody know how to arrange a shipment of shovels to Congress?

trick shovels that collapse when pressure is applied and won't "dig"--a monogramed one for each republican office holder---oooh, this is fun.

a guy can dream, can't he?

Don't call me Shirly.

I hope this was a joke on your part 0007. If it was i don't get it....

unless the exec branch owns the legislature and judicial branches ..
any history major knows that ..

Linsay, I can believe.

And, yes, I would expect the Supreme Court to dodge this bullet. They're in enough disrepute already.

but it is an interesting question. What does "advice and consent mean?" Does it require some action. If action is permanently blocked, is the senate fulfilling it's constitutional requirement?

All they are doing really is saying they want more debate. The democrats do plan on stopping the nomination permanently but they aren't really doing that when they prevent cloture. Theoretically, they could change their minds later and end the filibuster. The Senate certainly has a right to debate the nomination for as long as they feel they have to in order to give "advice" before they "consent", even if they aren't going to get to the "consent" part.

Who would have ever thought they would have heard Gore v. Bush and selected a President?

This entire tit for tat in the Senate is making my head spin.:crazy:

.

Why should the babies have to deal with others? Sen. Kennedy was a wild man today. It was Great.

If the judge is approved, they move on to their chamber. If they are rejected, they drop into a tank of alligators, problem over. That way, this whole situation would never have come up, as they all would have gotten the alligator tank. Unless the judges are from Florida where they might have learned how to succesfully wrestle alligators, humm...perhaps a swimming polar bear should be added to the tank....

I don't usually go reading NewsMax but this article is worth it to see what's going on in the minds of the far right;

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/13/174624.shtml

I mean the GOP in the majority is hloding a filabuster....against itself..How do they keep a stright face?
:kick:

I mean if they say Advise and Comsent means that a vote HAS to be taken then what about the 63 that were refused a hearing during the Clinton years, and the ones from Bush1, Reagan, Carter, Nixon... crissakes... what a mess if they opened that can of worms... Even Thomas, Scalia, and Rhenquist are proll like.... uh-uh... no way... go away...

who want tort reform and frivilious lawsuits thrown out?

how to run the business of the people because the legislators are closer to the people and speak for the people...

And this is a classic "be careful what you ask for" situation if ever there was one.

Senate GOP: 30 hours on filibustered Bush judicial nominees isn't enough

JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer Thursday, November 13, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



(11-13) 21:12 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --

An old Capitol Hill adage says: "Everything has been said but not everyone has said it."

Republicans kept the Senate open for a second straight night Thursday after some of their freshmen senators said 30 hours are not enough in the GOP's attempt to pry conservative jurists loose from Democratic filibusters.

President Bush, lending his voice to the effort, accused Democrats of "shameful" inaction on his judicial nominees.

The Senate talkathon was supposed to end at midnight Thursday. But Republicans added nine more hours to take them through 9 a.m. Friday, when they scheduled filibuster votes on three female nominees. (snip/...)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/11/13/national1924EST0785.DTL

The way CNN wrote the story this morning, it sounded like res was calling the pups "shameful" and to stop all this nasty partisian politics .. if only. Mirror Mirror on the wall ..

about every little thing. Even that stupid Reagan Tee Vee movie.

Things aren't going well on the big issues so they seem to want to score victories on these small but highly visible ones. I find it offensive and rather boring.

ALL or NOTHING
with me or agin me
chosen by god or satan's child

moderation is not an option ..

It is to be retro-active and Clinton's nominations that were filibustered by the repups get to take their seats ...

Wouldn't you hate to play monopoly with these guys?

without naming him tonight (or Friday morning). He said he went to Walter Reed to visit some injured soldiers, and met a young man who had lost a hand on one arm, and the other arm altogether. He said he was very aware of the soldier's admirable spirit and resolve to overcome his hardship. He said he was glad that Max Cleland had been able to go with his group, being a soldier, himself, who had lost three limbs in Viet Nam. Can't do justice to his actual words, but he made a BIG point of stating someone had the audacity to question Max Cleland's patriotism during the last election.

I was really hoping that that pompous, gibbering Saxby Chambliss was still in the house, as he had spoken late tonight, also. I hope Democrats take every opportunity to mention, just like Frank Lautenberg, the enormous evil in trying to brand Cleland as a traitor for not supporting _Bush's psychopathic ambitions.

Republicans expect to lose filibuster votes despite 38-plus hours of debate with Democrats

JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer Friday, November 14, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



(11-14) 00:33 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --

Almost two straight days of debate on President Bush's blocked judicial nominees changed little in a bleary-eyed, groggy-voiced Senate, with Republicans conceding that they can't stop Democrats from successfully blocking two more conservative jurists from the federal appeals court.

"I don't see a way out," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who called for an extra nine hours of debate Thursday night and now is considering suing the Senate to ban judicial filibusters. "Nobody is going to change their votes."

Democrats say they warned the GOP that the round-the-clock debate wouldn't work. (snip)

(snip) Democrats also said they won the debate by showing that the GOP is focused on the wrong issues, spending two legislative days talking about judicial nominees instead of finishing bills revamping Medicare and energy policy, not to mention eight overdue spending bills, in time to adjourn by Nov. 21.

"I think people are amused and wondering why the Senate isn't working on more important things," said Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota. (snip/...)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/11/14/national0333EST0446.DTL

All RIGHT! :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

but I'm sure as hell not amused...I'm outraged!

I would think there is more important business to attend to. So 4 picks got tossed. Bush is lucky. Spoiled frat boy.

The idiot never has had to compromise because he's always had a network to pull strings for him. But now that it's all out in the open, he's all alone and the Republicans had better pay close attention. As Bush continues to alienates himself from the country he will take the Republicans with him.

In England, they like Americans, but don't like Bush. So the separation is already beginning.

... from conservatives to seek a change in Senate rules to limit or eliminate filibusters, at least with regard to presidential appointments. He may yet decide to do just that.

That would be an explosive step, but not without precedent. Senate Democrats have on at least two occasions changed the filibuster rules to their advantage. The last time it was done, Senator Byrd was Majority Leader and the architect of the change, so it would be interesting to see where the self-styled Guardian of Precedent would come down on Frist "doing a Byrd."

I have mixed feelings about it. The modern "no contact" filibuster dates from 1981, when Republicans captured the Senate after several decades in the minority. The new Majority Leader, Howard Baker, announced several changes intended to make the Senate a kinder, gentler place. One of his reforms was to announce that "holds" would be honored. That is, Senators of the minority Party would no longer have to troop down and physically hold the floor to mount a filibuster.

Under the Baker rules, therefore, all one had to do was threaten a filibuster, and it would be treated as the real thing. Baker did this, remember, as an incoming MAJORITY leader, so it was an unforced concession to the now-minority Democrats. He did so, I imagine, because after so many years in the minority -- much of it spent complaining about how Democrats were running the Senate -- Baker had a sincere concern for minority privileges and wanted to do the right thing, as he saw it.

Like many reforms, however, this one had unintended consequences. Baker's rules made filibusters much easier because filibusterers no longer had to talk 24/7. Filibusters quickly became much more common and have now reached the point that we routinely talk about needing 60 votes to do much of anything in the Senate. That's not how it used to work.

Putting the immediate dispute over a handful of judges aside, I tend to think bringing back the round-the-clock talkathons would be worthwhile. Remember, Democrats were in the majority just two years ago, and will be again. Do we really want a Senate permanently crippled by the "rule of 60?"

We are highly unlikely to take back the Senate any time soon. We now stand to lose 4-5 Senate seats and probably pick up one. 2006 still has us defending more seats than the Republicans and we are likely to face more retirements as older Senators get sick of being in the minority (a 55-44-1 Senate means two fewer seats on each committee, so lots of our guys lose tons of clout - even if they weren't up for re-election). So 2008 is the first time the Republicans will be defending more seats and (IF we are lucky) it will be an "off year election" for the new Democratic president - which tends to hurt our chances of picking up 5-6 seats.

Going forward, if things continue to polarize in the South, we need to recognize that the Republicans will ahve a structural advantage in the Senate. Each state gets two seats and there are LOTS more Republican states (just smaller). We could be on the outs for quite awhile...

...so we don't want to give up rules that are intended to protect the minority.

Sure, if we win the White House we could veto much of what they do, but there is go certainty of victory there. And if Shrub wins his first term? We need to hold that judicial filibuster to keep the worst from getting in.

I could have sworn they were against that...........oh yeah only when the decision is against what they are told to spew.

However, there is ambiguity about the reach of the rules of the Senate (and the house for that matter).

For example does the Senate have the right to expell a member? Probably not, the Constitution says that each state will have two senators and once elected (well, and certified and sworn into office) that person IS a senator from state such ans such

But, the Senate rules could allow for the Senator to lose seniority, committee assignments, their car and driver, etc.

The rules of the Senate also allow for an appeal. If someone (perhaps it would be several someones -- perhaps a majority) appeal a rule, it goes to the Senate Secretary (I think) but this person is an individual appointed to his position. He/she rules on the issue and return his/her ruling to the person(s) that appealed. At this point, the Secretary's ruling can be appealed to the body of the Senate where the Senate would vote in favor of the ruling (meaning the Secretary's ruling stands) or against the ruling (meaning that the secretary's ruling is overridden).

So, if they really wanted to go nuclear, they could appeal the filibuster rule to the Secretary and then override his opinion with a simple majority. Many senators are loathe to do this.

Gee, that sure sounds familiar! It's easy for Bush to call the Dem senators "shameless", but no one ever calls Bush shameless. Why is that?

shame about Iraq
shame about economy
shame about jobs being exported to India


once Dumbya deals with his own shame, then is when he can talk to Dems for doing what any rethug did do to Clinton's nominees.

That "shame on you" shit sounds like his mother...

nasty "conservatives" running to the courts again. Whenever they don't get 100% of their way the go crying to "judge mommy". No wonder they are so desperate to pack the courts with unqualifed extremists. Wonder if there was any linkage of the nutcase in Alabama that was removed from office and the whackjobs they are trying to push through, if not there should have been.

the Supreme Court telling the Senate that one of it's rules of procedure and conduct is wrong?

okay, this just sounds extremely wrong

I would be hard pressed to decide between Lindsey "Mr. Hat" Graham and Rick Sanatorium.