February 14, 2005
CRY HAVOC...:
Frist has necessary votes to change filibuster rules (Charles Hurt and Stephen Dinan, 2/14/05, THE WASHINGTON TIMES)
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist says he has the 51 votes needed to change Senate rules and make it easier for Republicans to overcome Democratic filibusters against President Bush's judicial nominees, but he hopes such a change won't be necessary."We need to restore the over 200-year tradition and precedent of allowing every nominee of the president who has majority support an up-or-down vote on the floor of the United States Senate," Mr. Frist told The Washington Times on Thursday.
Bush Renominates as Judges 7 Whom Democrats Blocked (CARL HULSE, 2/15/05, NY Times)
President Bush on Monday formally renominated seven federal appeals court candidates who were blocked by Senate Democrats in his first term, and that sets the stage for a test of the strength of the expanded Republican majority.In a batch of nominations, Mr. Bush also sent back without comment the names of five other choices for federal appeals courts whose nominations were slowed by Democratic resistance over their backgrounds and records. [...]
Mr. Reid and other Democrats said they expected to hold firm against the nominees.
Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has said the four Senate seats that Republicans gained in November, splitting the chamber, 55 to 45, could enable Republicans to assemble the 60 votes needed to break filibusters against at least some candidates.
Democrats filibustered against 10 appeals court candidates in the last few years. Three of those nominees withdrew. The renominated people are Justice Janice R. Brown of California, Judge Richard A. Griffin of Michigan, Judge David W. McKeague of Michigan, William G. Myers III of Idaho, Justice Priscilla R. Owen of Texas, Judge William H. Pryor Jr. of Alabama and Judge Henry W. Saad of Michigan.
Those whose nominations were slowed but not filibustered are Judge Terrence W. Boyle of North Carolina, Thomas B. Griffith of Utah, William J. Haynes II of Virginia, Brett M. Kavanaugh of Washington and Judge Susan B. Neilson of Michigan.
It'd be best to invoke the nuclear option for Janice Rogers Brown. Posted by Orrin Judd at February 14, 2005 11:00 PM
That may be best. Alternatively, just hold the Democrats to a real filibuster--hold the floor and keep yapping. Nonstop. And when they're done, take the vote.
In the best of Senate traditions.
Posted by: jsmith at February 14, 2005 11:47 PMAFAIK Senate filibusters now operate under a gentlemans agreement that a senator need not actually be speaking the entire time. Filibusters like Jimmy Stuart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington are a thing of the past. But it would be interesting to know if the majority leader could cancel the agreement and compel the filibustering party to speak the entire time.
The problem is that the old Democrat Senate members are very good at fighting dirty, and they know all the parliamentary tricks (especially Byrd). I suspect the Democrats can easily stop all business in many other ways - refuse unanimous consent on routine items, demand roll call votes on absolutely everything, invoke repeated parliamentary ruling regarding points of order, or similar stalling tactics.
Posted by: Gideon at February 15, 2005 3:27 AMImagine where this could all lead: the Democrats in the Senate threatening to "shut down the government" if they don't get their way. At that point, my irony meter is pegged off-scale high.
Posted by: Mike Morley at February 15, 2005 5:56 AMThe MSM will never portray the Democrats as 'shutting down the government.' It will instead be 'preserving the separation of powers' or 'protecting our Constitution from being hijacked by a few political terrorists.'
Posted by: Bart at February 15, 2005 7:07 AMEnforcing a real old-fashioned fillibuster over a vote on a nominee such as Judge Brown ought to produce some interesting results after 24-36 hours or so -- especially if the Senate's foremost parlimentarian, wearied by exhaustion, lets his inner Bobby Byrd hang out. Just tune to C-SPAN 2 and start the videotape rolling...
Posted by: John at February 15, 2005 8:03 AM
demand roll call votes on absolutely everything,--
You mean we'd finally be getting our money's worth???
They have to be in session????
Harder to cause trouble if they're bottled up in the Senate.
Posted by: Sandy P at February 15, 2005 11:06 AMI don't know that the Senate Dems have the chops that they did back in the day. The Grand Kegal is over 80 and Teddy is is not so young. I say keep them up up for a few nights.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at February 15, 2005 11:08 AMWho cares about Byrd or Kennedy? The main point is to press the issue on Cantwell, Stabenow, Conrad, both Nelsons, Bingaman, and the rest up in 2006.
Posted by: jim hamlen at February 15, 2005 11:13 AMNRO has a great article emphasizing that the Old fashioned filibuster MUST be used to defeat the Dems, if only to show that Frist has what it takes to succeed W.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/moran200502150749.asp
Posted by: Ptah at February 15, 2005 11:18 AMjim:
They'd be easy seats for the GOP to win if either retired or died.
Posted by: oj at February 15, 2005 1:39 PM