Frist's Filibuster Fray

[lokstah]

How do the bloody and soapy-yet-unclean lackeys in the room sound off on the current Democrat/Republican tussling in Washington?

Is the "nuclear option" an appropriate step? Will it be attempted? If so, will it succeed? Do the Democrats have any countermeasures on deck that involve any teeth? What will the reprecussions be if Frist makes a serious attempt at eliminating the filibuster from judicial confirmations?

And what of the debate to begin with? Are Frist and his colleagues overreacting, given the high perecentage of Bush's nominees already confirmed? Does Frist's involvement in the church-broadcast Justice Sunday event, which portrayed Democratic judicial blocking as an attack on Christianity, suggest he's leading the party along a dogma-fueled mission rather than a measured political agenda?

Discuss.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Reacting to a Democratic offer in the fight over filibusters, Republican leader Bill Frist said Tuesday he isn't interested in any deal that fails to ensure Senate confirmation for all of President Bush's judicial nominees.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid had been quietly talking with Frist about confirming at least two of Bush's blocked nominees from Michigan in exchange for withdrawing a third nominee. This would have been part of a compromise that would have the GOP back away from a showdown over changing Senate rules to prevent Democrats from using the filibuster to block Bush's nominees.

"As part of any resolution, the nuclear option must be off the table," said Reid, referring to the GOP threat to change the filibuster rules.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan, traveling in Texas with Bush, said "our view is that Senate Democrats need to stop playing politics and give all judicial nominees an up or down vote."

 

[Colorado Ryder]

How do the bloody and soapy-yet-unclean lackeys in the room sound off on the current Democrat/Republican tussling in Washington?

Is the "nuclear option" an appropriate step? Will it be attempted? If so, will it succeed? Do the Democrats have any countermeasures on deck that involve any teeth? What will the reprecussions be if Frist makes a serious attempt at eliminating the filibuster from judicial confirmations?

And what of the debate to begin with? Are Frist and his colleagues overreacting, given the high perecentage of Bush's nominees already confirmed? Does Frist's involvement in the church-broadcast Justice Sunday event, which portrayed Democratic judicial blocking as an attack on Christianity, suggest he's leading the party along a dogma-fueled mission rather than a measured political agenda?

Discuss.

I'd rather they not do it. Mainly, because the Republicans will not always have the majority. However, I think the Democrats need to realize that they are now the minority and the judges deserve a vote on the floor. Dem's need to choose their battles wisely. This doesn't seem so. The filibuster may make them to be obstructionist. Maybe the lesson of Tom Daschle wasn't taken to heart.

 

[lokstah]

I'd rather they not do it. Mainly, because the Republicans will not always have the majority. However, I think the Democrats need to realize that they are now the minority and the judges deserve a vote on the floor. Dem's need to choose their battles wisely. This doesn't seem so. The filibuster may make them to be obstructionist. Maybe the lesson of Tom Daschle wasn't taken to heart.

Sound points. The first observation you make is a pretty solid check-and-balance test: if it's a change which favors us now, but could be disasterous when we're not in a solid majority, perhaps it grants a potentially abusive power.

I question the obstructionist suggestion (not surprisingly), purely because of the numbers (if I'm not mistaken, 204 confirmed nominations versus 10 blocks, all 10 of which are currently being re-submitted by the president).

 

[Colorado Ryder]

I question the obstructionist suggestion (not surprisingly), purely because of the numbers (if I'm not mistaken, 204 confirmed nominations versus 10 blocks, all 10 of which are currently being re-submitted by the president).

I know what you're saying. Most citizens don't pay that much attention to judicial nominees. Most people don't care. So anytime there is news about filibustering judges them people it will appear obstructionist. After the political spin is done then it will appear that the Dem's are obstructionist. I'm not saying they are.
I read an article where the Dem's are willing to compromise. If Bush will remove the most controversial nominees then they will let the others go thru. Now either the Dem's are suddenly bi-partisan and don't want to shutdown the government or they fear the "nuclear" option.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aSdsfvWk3eOM&refer=us

 

[lokstah]

I read an article where the Dem's are willing to compromise. If Bush will remove the most controversial nominees then they will let the others go thru. Now either the Dem's are suddenly bi-partisan and don't want to shutdown the government or they fear the "nuclear" option.

The compromise involves Reid proposing that Frist remove one of three nominees from Michigan (I believe), in exchange for allowing confirmation of the other two. Frist reportedly said no.

I'm sure the Democrats hope to avoid the nuclear option.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

The compromise involves Reid proposing that Frist remove one of three nominees from Michigan (I believe), in exchange for allowing confirmation of the other two. Frist reportedly said no.

I'm sure the Democrats hope to avoid the nuclear option.

Interesting. The article said the Democrat's are complaining the nominees are too conservative. A conservative president nominates conservative judges!

 

[lokstah]

Interesting. The article said the Democrat's are complaining the nominees are too conservative. A conservative president nominates conservative judges!

Shocking!

Almost as shocking, that is, as moderate and liberal Senators objecting to the lifetime appointment of conservative judges!

 

[Colorado Ryder]

Shocking!

Almost as shocking, that is, as moderate and liberal Senators objecting to the lifetime appointment of conservative judges!

What is shocking is that they expect a conservative president to pander to Democratic wants. Ain't gonna happen. Not like the Dem's put up all moderate judges.

 

[lokstah]

What is shocking is that they expect a conservative president to pander to Democratic wants. Ain't gonna happen. Not like the Dem's put up all moderate judges.

Well, considering 204 out of 214 of Bush's presumably conservative nominees have been confirmed, I'm not sure you're painting an accurate picture of Democratic Party expectations.

The fact that only a very small minority of Bush's candidates have been met with serious, concerted opposition seems to verify what Reid and colleagues have argued: that they're willing to follow the tradition of confirming presidential nominees, even ones alligned with the other party, but they'll put a foot down in the rare instances that a nominee is deemed to be too far off the map--an extremist.

The claim isn't that these judges have to be stopped because they're conservatives. The claim is that since the system affords them influence, Democrats will attempt to block the 4.6% of Bush's nominees which they deem too conservative. Sounds to me like fairly reasonable politics of compromise, not an expectation of pandering.

 

[davidmc]

How do the bloody and soapy-yet-unclean lackeys in the room sound off on the current Democrat/Republican tussling in Washington?

Is the "nuclear option" an appropriate step? Will it be attempted? If so, will it succeed? Do the Democrats have any countermeasures on deck that involve any teeth? What will the reprecussions be if Frist makes a serious attempt at eliminating the filibuster from judicial confirmations?

And what of the debate to begin with? Are Frist and his colleagues overreacting, given the high perecentage of Bush's nominees already confirmed? Does Frist's involvement in the church-broadcast Justice Sunday event, which portrayed Democratic judicial blocking as an attack on Christianity, suggest he's leading the party along a dogma-fueled mission rather than a measured political agenda?

Discuss.

Seen this lokstah &, as you stated, 95% confirmation record; on par w/ Repub. record inre: Clinton's appointee's, isn't too shabby. Looks as though the Repub's are blowing it way out of proportion

"Most oppose filibuster changes, poll finds
Public rejects GOP’s ‘nuclear option’ by 2-to-1 margin"

By Richard Morin and Dan Balz

Updated: 11:11 p.m. ET April 25, 2005
"As the Senate moves toward a major confrontation over judicial appointments, a strong majority of Americans oppose changing the rules to make it easier for Republican leaders to win confirmation of President Bush's court nominees, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll."

They will have to take these figures into acct. or face the consequences in the 06' election cycle. Don't think for a minute that the political "fall-out" is not being played out in their minds.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634330/

 

[lokstah]

Seen this lokstah &, as you stated, 95% confirmation record; on par w/ Repub. record inre: Clinton's appointee's, isn't too shabby. Looks as though the Repub's are blowing it way out of proportion

"Most oppose filibuster changes, poll finds
Public rejects GOP’s ‘nuclear option’ by 2-to-1 margin"

By Richard Morin and Dan Balz

Updated: 11:11 p.m. ET April 25, 2005
"As the Senate moves toward a major confrontation over judicial appointments, a strong majority of Americans oppose changing the rules to make it easier for Republican leaders to win confirmation of President Bush's court nominees, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll."

They will have to take these figures into acct. or face the consequences in the 06' election cycle. Don't think for a minute that the political "fall-out" is not being played out in their minds.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634330/

Yeah, I had heard that. Being the glass-half-empty-guy that American politics have made me lately, I'm not feeling good about it though. The Social Security fiasco comes to mind--the GOP seems to be in full-on test the boundaries mode; they're aware of the high level of confidence the public at large seems to have in them and are chugging along pretty impetuously. That they've noisily advocated a series of unpopular, super-hot-button issues lately (Schiavo intervention; Soc.Sec reform; the Nuclear Option), comes across to me as self-assured and bold, even if they quietly back down. Team Rove knows they're far from experiencing a backlash...

 

[davidmc]

Yeah, I had heard that. Being the glass-half-empty-guy that American politics have made me lately, I'm not feeling good about it though. The Social Security fiasco comes to mind--the GOP seems to be in full-on test the boundaries mode; they're aware of the high level of confidence the public at large seems to have in them and are chugging along pretty impetuously. That they've noisily advocated a series of unpopular, super-hot-button issues lately (Schiavo intervention; Soc.Sec reform; the Nuclear Option), comes across to me as self-assured and bold, even if they quietly back down. Team Rove knows they're far from experiencing a backlash...

Agree. They are pushing as close to the outside of the envelope as possible because they know that they might not be in power in 06' &/or 08'

 

[Colorado Ryder]

Well, considering 204 out of 214 of Bush's presumably conservative nominees have been confirmed, I'm not sure you're painting an accurate picture of Democratic Party expectations.

The fact that only a very small minority of Bush's candidates have been met with serious, concerted opposition seems to verify what Reid and colleagues have argued: that they're willing to follow the tradition of confirming presidential nominees, even ones alligned with the other party, but they'll put a foot down in the rare instances that a nominee is deemed to be too far off the map--an extremist.

The claim isn't that these judges have to be stopped because they're conservatives. The claim is that since the system affords them influence, Democrats will attempt to block the 4.6% of Bush's nominees which they deem too conservative. Sounds to me like fairly reasonable politics of compromise, not an expectation of pandering.

Actually the ones they are filibustering are on the appeals court. Most of the others were lower level positions. Many of those were more conservative than the remaining 10. They were allowed to pass because they wouldn't be as influential as an appeals court judge. If you think this is a battle, wait till a Supreme Court spot opens up.
It is a dangerous gane the Democrats are playing. If the Dem's lose then 2006 could be diastrous.

 

[lokstah]

Actually the ones they are filibustering are on the appeals court. Most of the others were lower level positions. Many of those were more conservative than the remaining 10. They were allowed to pass because they wouldn't be as influential as an appeals court judge.

Sounds about right. Whatever the subtleties of the Democratic Party give and take, Bush has still enjoyed a more than 95% confirmation rate. I'd maintain that this episode follows a pattern--a standard tactic of the current GOP. Since 2001, these guys have been extremely succesful at generating a sense of immediacy and sudden urgency around longstanding conservative agenda issues: the Hussein regime, gay marriage opposition, Social Security solvency, sanctity of life issues, and so on--and prompting discussion about the dire need for rapid policy change. The tactical skill of today's GOP captains in generating crisis and zeroing in on fear has been, frankly, astounding. That a very reasonable 95%+ judicial confirmation rate should lead to outrage and the threat of a "nuclear option" is typical.

I recognize this is a general political technique, old as time itself, and not simply a modern American conservative tactic...

If you think this is a battle, wait till a Supreme Court spot opens up.It is a dangerous gane the Democrats are playing. If the Dem's lose then 2006 could be diastrous.

There's a reason Supreme Court appointments were featured heavily in grassroots Democratic Party campaigning last year.

That said, it's difficult to know how the Democrats could possibly avoid disaster. It's all very grim.

 

[zapper]

Well, considering 204 out of 214 of Bush's presumably conservative nominees have been confirmed, I'm not sure you're painting an accurate picture of Democratic Party expectations.

Pure balloon juice here lok...Those numbers include trial court judges in addition to appeals court judges

The fact that only a very small minority of Bush's candidates have been met with serious, concerted opposition seems to verify what Reid and colleagues have argued: that they're willing to follow the tradition of confirming presidential nominees, even ones alligned with the other party, but they'll put a foot down in the rare instances that a nominee is deemed to be too far off the map--an extremist.

Really looks like Bush isn't getting a fair shake comparied to Carter...hell, even Clinton...

Truman 81.8%
Eisenhower 90.2%
Kennedy/Johnson 89.7%
Nixon/Ford 89.1%
Carter 91.8%
Reagan 81.3%
G.H.W. Bush 77.8%
Clinton 61.3%
G.W. Bush 51.5%

 

[Colorado Ryder]

Agree. They are pushing as close to the outside of the envelope as possible because they know that they might not be in power in 06' &/or 08'

Republicans might lose the WH in 08. But most political analyst don't see the house or senate changing hands anytime soon. Many think the Republican majority will grow in both.

 

[davidmc]

Republicans might lose the WH in 08. But most political analyst don't see the house or senate changing hands anytime soon. Many think the Republican majority will grow in both.

Are you trying to frighten me?

 

[Colorado Ryder]

Are you trying to frighten me?

Look at it this way. You will have plenty of material for the soapbox.

 

[zapper]

I know what you're saying. Most citizens don't pay that much attention to judicial nominees. Most people don't care.

I concur...Also, when polled about I don't think most citizens even know what a filibuster is so why would they be against it? It's all in the wording. Now, if a pollster started his/her question with this: Filibuster : A filibuster is the use of deliberate and delaying tactics, such as a long, pointless speech, in an attempt to interfere or obstruct with a legal action, such as passing a law in the U.S. Senate...Perhaps there would be a different response...

 

[lokstah]

Really looks like Bush isn't getting a fair shake comparied to Carter...hell, even Clinton...

Truman 81.8%
Eisenhower 90.2%
Kennedy/Johnson 89.7%
Nixon/Ford 89.1%
Carter 91.8%
Reagan 81.3%
G.H.W. Bush 77.8%
Clinton 61.3%
G.W. Bush 51.5%

Clearly a warm and fuzzy trend. The Democrats simply didn't want WB to feel left out.

Point taken.