Frist urges Democrats to stop filibusters

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/11/11/frist_urges_democrats_to_stop_filibusters/

WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist on Thursday urged Democrats to stop blocking President Bush's federal court nominees and hinted that he may try to change Senate rules to thwart their delaying tactics.

"One way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end," Frist, R-Tenn., said in a speech to the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group
...

Republicans hope their gain of four seats on Election Day will discourage Democrats from using filibusters again. But in a Senate next year with 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and a Democrat-leaning independent, Democrats still will have the 40 votes necessary to uphold a filibuster.

...
Frist previously has advocated changing Senate rules to make it more difficult to continue a filibuster. While the idea went nowhere in the current Congress, Frist raised it again in his speech, saying that judicial filibusters were "nothing less than a formula for tyranny by the minority."
...
To block some of Bush's nominees, Democrats have used procedures that required Republicans to come up with 60 votes to advance the president's choices. It takes 60 votes in the 100-member Senate to break a filibuster, meaning some Democrats would have to side with Republicans.

Blow me you effin' asshole.

ow...

Hey, maybe that'll catch on, like "Santorum."

Santorum!! and the padded cell.

:crazy:

...unless you're a Republican. ;-)

n/t

on purely evil functions. GO FUCK OFF you medical parasite! We know how you made your millions, you cocksucker.

Hey Frist, we live in a representative DEMOCRACY. Some members of Congress actually recognize that point.

From ze New Republican Party.

The Democrats have been kinder to *'s nominees than the Repukes were to Clinton's

to lick his tangy bunghole.

"One way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end," which is Republican-speak for bend over and take it up the ass Democrats
I fucking hate these people
Filibusters are just about the only thing we have left

Maybe Frist would be happy if the Democrats just resigned

A PRICK.... and NEEDS to be taken down!!!

... and tell him we can't wait to see him put Frist in his rightful place!

But, really, doesn't he find those brass balls of his a little heavy in the pants?

If the Dems take control of the Senate in 2006.

Yeah right! What about the tyranny of the MAJORITY asshole?

How inconvenient for Frist that the minority retains a voice at all. Jefferson wrote "the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression".

Though to respect the will of the minority is farthest from the mind of "the mandate" at this time.

I'd love to see them change the rules and then lose their majority status. Sometimes it's best to be careful what you wish for.

Right out of the senate. The gov of TN is a Democrat so this would be ok. PETA should be hounding him (no pun intended).
No need for them to bend over and hold their ankles. I'd just sit tight and be quiet, don't let them know what you are thinking. Unless of course the rooms or email are bugged again. And given the fact education isn't a strong point in most red states, I disregard his statement re: tyranny. It was an intentional tool the founding fathers put in place to give the minority a voice. What whiny bunch they are, 203 appointments approved (after letting them sit empty all those years), greed isn't relegated to money only I guess. Push come to shove, the judges can be removed. I say start turning the tables and call them activist judges. If you filibuster Rehnquist's replacement, we get some 4-4 decisions and some 5-3 decisions. If the next opening is from the right leaning side and we filibuster, now we are at 4-3 and 5-2. Best case would be to ride out the rest of the moron's term with 7 justices, just like in the days before FDR expanded the court. I highly doubt they'd use a recess appointment and I'm not sure if that is allowed for the SCOTUS.

First, they would use a recess appointment in the short term. Second, filibustering a SCOTUS nominee is much bigger than filibustering a district or circuit court nominee. The hearings for a SCOTUS nominee will be covered on all of the cable channels and the visibility will be much greater. Just ask Daschle how it feels to be labeled an obstructionist in a red state. If the dems filibuster a couple SCOTUS nominees, I guarantee we will lose additional senate seats in 2006.

anyone?

n/t

And HOW DARE the Dems do what the law allows them to do!!!

DAMN them Dems!

...and keep up the filibusters.

They should filibuster EVERYTHING...

you cat-killing son of a bitch. More of Bush's crappy appointees have been confirmed than Clinton's were, and the ones that aren't, well, the little emperor just recess appoints. What the hell are you whining about, Billy? This bunch of repubs are the biggest crybabies I have ever seen. :cry:

...in his twisted, pathetic cat-torturing dreams.


um, he can't really do this can he? Just change rules. . . by himself??
dp

Wouldn't it be easier just to get 60 votes for cloture? It'll be very interesting to see how he plans on making these changes.

seems the way to go.

Can it be done?

PS this thug was a lung surgeon. Prime example of the need for a 50 K cap on wages of nationalized dr's , to drive greedheads like him out of the field they have totally ruined.

There are about 4 Democratic Senate seats up for re-elect in 2006 that I would consider endangered. Lose those, and suddenly we don't have a filibuster anymore. Much healthier to cooperate on most legislation and only filibuster the truly disgusting stuff.

At the Federalist Society today….. Theodore Olson giving a speech about a potential firestorm over the next Justice….Frist ranting about the evil filibuster tactic….Damn….I’m gonna have to rinse my brain out cause of the images popping into my mind….gross…


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x980793

Olson Predicts Firestorm for Next Justice

and make them think twice before nominating extremists judges. Let them know their extremism isn't what is needed.

Can't take the heat. Now he wants to change the rules. Sounds like a wimpy bully. Oh, yeah, that's what repukes are.

What a load of SHIT.

Whine all you want.They will speak for the 54 million of us who voted for DEMOCRACY.

"One way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end," Frist, R-Tenn., said in a speech to the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group


It will stop when the nomination of intellectual activist judges stops.

If Frist thinks he's really in the majority, it's time he found out otherwise.

what a fucking buttmunch.

To paraphrase the estimable Mike Malloy, "Have I mentioned how much I HATE these people?"

for democracy in America.

if filibusters had been banned when they were the minority.

Fuck you Frist!

Bring it, Frist.

See that finger sticking up, guess where you can put it ? ( * )

i have not heard it.

thanks,
oscar

while in medical school. Told shelter staff he wanted them as companions. Then he did experiments on them, torturing and killing them.

Sick bastard.

if for some reason anyone wants to read more on this twisted individual,


http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20021231-071056-3546r

http://www.rense.com/general33/frist.htm

it's called "democracy"--didya ever hear of it?

Called the nuclear option, it would require an appeal to the chair (a republican), and cofirmation by a simple majority of the Senators. After that, executive appointments could not be filabustered, just bills. I give it a 50/50 chance of happening.

Remember, filabusters on nominees is new. Thomas got approved with 53 votes, and was never filabustered -- even though there were easily 40 senators who didn't want him.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

n/t

we need to flood his in box with our thoughts on his statement.We need to rail against this statement just as the repignicans did against Spector.

Goooood Democrats.

Sure. Right.

Let's just dispense with all laws - with all rules - and have a flat out physical fight for power - caveman style!! I'm saying we will kick the shit out of the bow-tied chickenhawk bullies! There - is that low enough for you, Frist!! FUCK YOU, you Fourth Reich KITTY KILLER!!!

:puke:
:argh:
:mad:

him what he thinks the dems should do regarding filibusters??

STFU, Frist!

Let's go to the constitution and the Senate rules, shall we?

First the constitutionality of the Senate Rules:

Article I.
Section 5.

Clause 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Now the Senate rules in question:

Standing Rules of The Senate
RULE XXII

PRECEDENCE OF MOTIONS

Section 2.

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.

<snip>

The constitution grants the power to the rules of the proceedings for the Senate to the Senate. The Senate has determined that altering the rules requires a vote of two-thirds of the voting members. The Senate has also determined that moving to close a debate in order to vote requires a three-fifths vote of the members of the Senate.

It would be unconstitutional for the Senate to ignore their rules in the matter of filibusters.

Trent Lott suggests ignoring the rules of the Senate AND THE CONSTITUTION with a dictatorship of the chair of the Senate.