September 21, 2005

FILIBUSTERS WERE MADE TO BE BROKEN:

Democrats revive filibuster threat (Tom Curry, Sept. 21, 2005, MSNBC)

President Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court to replace Sandra Day O’Connor appeared to be skating on thin ice Wednesday, even though the president hasn’t yet revealed who the nominee is.

In the war of nerves leading up to Bush's announcement of his next high court nominee, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid and other Democrats were signaling Wednesday that the filibuster — extended debate in order to kill a nomination — is an option they might use.


Here's where Mr. Reid's decision to move further left than even Pat Leahy on the Roberts vote damages his credibility. When 70 Senators say by their votes that Mr. Roberts is mainstream enough to be Chief, but Mr. Reid demurs it is he who is placed outside the mainstream.

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 21, 2005 11:38 PM
Comments

He's the Senator from Nevada, so he's a gambling man (and Robert Redford has just offered $1 million to sleep with his wife...).

Posted by: John at September 22, 2005 12:16 AM

My undestanding is that it's Specter who's calling on the president to put on the breaks, and not just signalling, either:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aRLlfRJo_9MA&refer=us

Posted by: Rick Perlstein at September 22, 2005 2:54 AM

Rick:
Senator Specter's signaling is irrelevant since he has no power in this case. If he stands up to Bush, he will be replaced (hopefully). His suggestion that Bush defer his nomination for O'Connor's replacement until the next session of the Supreme Court is ludicrous.

Posted by: jd watson [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 22, 2005 5:14 AM

Agree with JD. Unless Bush has completely lost his political sense he will put another nominee up very soon and force the Dems to look bad again.

Posted by: AWW at September 22, 2005 7:40 AM

Save the nomination for an election year? Not likely.

Posted by: oj at September 22, 2005 8:11 AM

What are they thinking????
Rejecting the nominee even before he/she is actually, you know, nominated? How do they think this will play out in the minds of the uncommitted independent middle-of-the-road voters? "Vote for us--we are against anything & everything the President is for!"

No to mention the little fact that each Congress sets its rules at the start of the session---and the rule which allows filibusters of appointments will surely be rejected for the next Congress. It won't even be a "nuclear option" then, it'll be just one of umpteen rules that are normally settled on at that time.

Posted by: fred at September 22, 2005 1:21 PM
« BREAK OUT THE GREEN EYE SHADES: | Main | SILLY QUESTION: »