May 20, 2005
CUT THE BLUE WIRE:
GOP Files Cloture Motion to End Debate (William Branigin, May 20, 2005, Washington Post)
The Senate's Republican majority today began a countdown to a vote that has been dubbed the "nuclear option," a decision on whether to end the ability of the chamber's minority to use filibusters to block the appointment of federal judges.After a third day of debate on one of President Bush's most controversial judicial nominees, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) filed a cloture motion to end the debate and put the nomination to a vote. The cloture vote, scheduled for Tuesday, would trigger a series of steps leading to the "nuclear option" -- unless a bipartisan group of moderate senators succeeds in negotiating a compromise to head it off. [...]
After submitting the cloture motion, which was signed by 18 senators, Cornyn said there would be a fourth day of debate Monday on the nomination of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla R. Owen to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans. [...]
As described by Senate sources, the nuclear option would be triggered if, as currently expected in the absence of a compromise, the Republicans fall short of the 60 votes they need to end debate on Owen on Tuesday. At that point, Frist would rise to make a point of order that debate on a judicial nominee should be limited and call for an end to the Democratic delays.
Vice President Cheney, as the presiding officer of the Senate, would rule in Frist's favor, prompting Democrats to appeal. Frist would then move to table the appeal, and the Senate would vote on that motion, which is not subject to debate. If the motion passed by a simple majority, the Senate would then vote at a specified time on the nomination of Owen, with a simple majority required to confirm her. If the motion failed, the nomination would not come to a vote.
Thus, the vote on the motion would set a new precedent for ending filibusters, effectively circumventing the Senate requirement of a two-thirds vote -- 67 senators -- to change the body's rules. This de facto rule change would be the "nuclear option" so dreaded by Democrats and some Republicans.
MORE:
Poll: Most Want Assertive Senate on Judges (WILL LESTER, May 20, 2005, The Associated Press)
More than three-quarters of Americans say the Senate should aggressively examine federal judicial nominees and not just approve them because they are the president's choices.Posted by Orrin Judd at May 20, 2005 6:27 PMThat's one of the few aspects of this divisive issue that gets widespread agreement, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Friday.
Respondents favored conservative over liberal judges in general, 47 percent to 39 percent. As for a possible Supreme Court nominee, 52 percent said they felt comfortable that President Bush would pick the right kind of justice; 46 percent said they did not feel comfortable he would.
"Cut the red wire; R-E-D red!"
Juggernaut (1974, dir Richard Lester).
Posted by: Mike Morley at May 20, 2005 7:04 PMBut how many think someone should wait 4 years????
Posted by: Sandy P. at May 20, 2005 7:14 PMThere's quite a difference between "assertive" and "obstructionalist". Asking whether or not there should be an up or down vote on the judges seems to be a question that AP either never asked or didn't see fit to include in the responses listed in the story.
Posted by: John at May 20, 2005 7:21 PMI heard that Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, who rarely gets exercised about anything but pork for Alaska, is so fired up that he, as President Pro Tem of the Senate, will be in the chair for the procedural ruling, though Chaney will take the gavel if needed to break a tie. I saw a bit of a rerun of Stevens at a news conference yesterday, and he was hotter than I have seen him since he jumped down Daschle's throat for making a snide remark about it seemed like finishing a bill on something or other should take precedence over Steven's planned fishing trip in Alaska. I thought the old boy was going to jump over desks to get to Daschle.
Tad Cochran, now Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, was at the same news conference and seemed to be in full support of Frist. If these old bulls are all in, life could get very interesting for some of the GOP compromisers-- they all have to go to the Appropriations Committee with hat in hand to ask for favors on pork. Stevens was Chairman, and I think is still on the Committee, and I know for a fact that he would cut people off at the knees who crossed him.
Posted by: Dan at May 20, 2005 8:55 PMMy guess is that enough Dems will vote for cloture that the issue will be moot. Even for Henry Saad.
Posted by: jim hamlen at May 20, 2005 11:31 PMJim: Except for the trouble it would cause with their base, that's clearly the Dem's best move.
Posted by: David Cohen at May 21, 2005 12:11 AMJim Hamlen and David Cohen:
Agreed. If the Dems had any sense at all, they would let the votes on challenged Court of Appeals nominees proceed to a floor vote (thereby avoiding any change in the Senate cloture rules), and keep their powder dry to argue about 'extremism' and 'out of the mainstream' for Supreme Court nominees. A much better sell to the American public, methinks. But it won't happen (see, the fable about the frog and the scorpion).
Posted by: Fred Jacobsen (San Fran) at May 21, 2005 4:55 AMIf he was smart, Reid would secretly get some red state Dems (I bet he wishes he could do it himself) to be "statesmanlike" and "defy" the party to vote for cloture. They would take the heat from the base but be helped with their voters and the blue staters could show that they had hung tough but were undercut by the moderates. It would be interesting to see which way Hillary would go.
Posted by: David Cohen at May 21, 2005 10:47 AMIf they want to cut the ties (or limit the linkage) with the nutcase Left, this is where to do it. Dare the hard Left to leave - what would they accomplish on their own in an election? 8%? 10%? Probably not even that. Nader got what in 2000? 2.8%?
Posted by: jim hamlen at May 21, 2005 3:20 PMjim:
How do Democrats, who haven't hit 50% since LBJ, ever win another election if you subtract even just 3-4%?
Posted by: oj at May 21, 2005 3:25 PMThey probably won't, but they certainly won't if their public face is increasingly anti-American (Whoopi, Michael Moore, Ted Danson, Streisand, Soros, Jimmy, Pelosi, Tereza, Sharpton, Kucinich, etc.). If they don't break with the moonbats now, then when?
It is a difficult spot to be in. Squeeze them hard.
Posted by: jim hamlen at May 21, 2005 4:06 PM