Democrats reach out in bipartisanship

[Tiger Al 0]

I'm sorry...the republicans don't get to whine about doing things in the spirit of bipartisanship anymore. They've shown for the last time that their idea of "bipartisanship" means to do whatever they say, or else. I hope the Democrats really put the screws to those greedy, power-drunk b@stards.

WASHINGTON - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist on Tuesday rejected compromise offers that would allow minority Democrats to continue to block judicial nominees, saying all of President Bush's past and future court choices deserve confirmation votes from the GOP-controlled Senate.

"At the end of the day, one will be left standing ... the Constitution, which allows up-or-down votes, or the filibuster," Frist said.

Democrats blocked 10 of Bush's appellate court choices through filibuster threats, which means those nominees would have to get 60 votes before they could be confirmed to lifetime seats on the nation's second highest court. They have threatened to block again the seven that Bush renominated this year, as well as future ones they consider outside of the mainstream.

Republicans in turn have threatened to use their majority to change senatorial rules to require a simple majority vote for confirmation, in part because they fear a Democratic blockade could affect a Supreme Court vacancy if a high court seat opens in Bush's second term.

To avoid that showdown, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday he had offered Frist a compromise. The Nevada Democrat refused to give full details but said part of that compromise would require Republicans to back away from attempting to ban judicial filibusters.

"I want to emphasize that any potential compromise is contingent on a commitment that the nuclear option will not be exercised in any form during this Congress," said Reid.

Democratic congressional sources said Reid laid out the compromise for party members at a closed door meeting Tuesday.

It includes allowing confirmation votes for three nominees for the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — Richard Griffin, David McKeague and Susan Neilson — in exchange for Henry Saad's nomination to that court being withdrawn. Democrats also would not block confirmation of one of the four remaining filibustered nominees: Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, William Myers and William Pryor, although it is not clear which one would be chosen for confirmation.

Reid also called for giving senators more power over appointment of judges from their state as well as the creation of a task force, made up of former senators, to recommend improvements in the confirmation process.

But Frist, earlier in the day, said he would not accept any deal that keeps his Republican majority from confirming judicial nominees that the Senate Judiciary Committee has approved.

"My goal is to have fair up-and-down votes," Frist said. "Are we going to shift from that principle? The answer to that is no."

Frist also would not discuss specifics, but said he would not advocate the withdrawal of any judicial nominee and would continue to insist they all get confirmation votes. "That would mean people in the past as well as the future," Frist said.

Frist and Reid both acknowledge they are constantly negotiating, trying to find a solution in which the Senate does not have a showdown.

Republicans could eliminate judicial filibusters by majority vote, and Democrats concede Frist may be only one or two votes shy of the necessary total.

On Tuesday, one of the undecided Republicans, Sen. George Voinovich (news, bio, voting record) of Ohio, said he would vote with Frist to ban filibusters. But, he said, "I'm hoping that they come up with a compromise so we don't need to deal with this issue."

Democrats say their compromise is aimed at the 10-to-12 undecided Republicans who want to avoid a showdown. "This compromise is aimed at showing them that we really don't want to come to this, " said Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y.

The undecided Republicans are also being pressured by groups like the American Conservative Union, which rates lawmakers for conservatives. That group announced Tuesday that it would score lawmakers based on how they vote on Frist's plan to ban judicial filibusters.

That decision "demonstrates clearly how important ACU regards the need to restore fairness and the historic practices of the Senate on the issue of nominees to the federal bench," said ACU Chairman David Keene.

LINK

[MDM4AU 332]

"Frist and Reid both acknowledge they are constantly negotiating, trying to find a solution in which the Senate does not have a showdown."

[Tiger Al 0]

"Frist and Reid both acknowledge they are constantly negotiating, trying to find a solution in which the Senate does not have a showdown."

157524[/snapback]

Translated: Reid makes a conciliatory offer that Frist refuses. Frist then counters with a non-negotiable offer.

[MDM4AU 332]

"Frist and Reid both acknowledge they are constantly negotiating, trying to find a solution in which the Senate does not have a showdown."

157524[/snapback]

Translated: Reid makes a conciliatory offer that Frist refuses. Frist then counters with a non-negotiable offer.

157525[/snapback]

To hear you tell it, anyway.

[Tiger Al 0]

"Frist and Reid both acknowledge they are constantly negotiating, trying to find a solution in which the Senate does not have a showdown."

157524[/snapback]

Translated: Reid makes a conciliatory offer that Frist refuses. Frist then counters with a non-negotiable offer.

157525[/snapback]

To hear you tell it, anyway.

157526[/snapback]

No, to hear Frist tell it, Einstein.

But Frist, earlier in the day, said he would not accept any deal that keeps his Republican majority from confirming judicial nominees that the Senate Judiciary Committee has approved.

Frist also would not discuss specifics, but said he would not advocate the withdrawal of any judicial nominee and would continue to insist they all get confirmation votes. "That would mean people in the past as well as the future," Frist said.

[AUloggerhead 2,244]

Why should Frist have to negotiate his principles? He is standing firm on his belief that judicial nominee fillibusters in effect require a super majority for confirmation. This is contrary to the simple majority as indicated in the Constitution. If the nominees pass the Senate Judiciary Committee and are brought to the floor for a vote, then only a simple majority should be required for confirmation. This is the system we've had since 1787 and it's worked fine ever since. The party in control of the Senate votes for confirmation of the nominees. This is perfect example of checks & balances in our government -- no party will retain power forever. Frist would be a fool to negotiate away his stance.

Al, ... just curious ... but what kind of bipartisan gesture is it when you threaten to bring all Senate business to a screeching halt if the Senate votes to change the rules regarding the use of fillibusters?

Also, what kind of compromise is it when you state you're going to oppose one of four nominees, and not state which nominee it is? Either each nominee is qualified to sit on a court or not. If voting for a nominee is troublesome for a Senator, fine. State your objections and vote.

[Tiger Al 0]

Al, ... just curious ... but what kind of bipartisan gesture is it when you threaten to bring all Senate business to a screeching halt if the Senate votes to change the rules regarding the use of fillibusters?

The same kind that would change the rules in the first place to maintain their irresponsible agenda. The same kind that would recycle 7 of these extremists when they didn't make it last year.

Also, what kind of compromise is it when you state you're going to oppose one of four nominees, and not state which nominee it is?

I think you misread this. I don't think it's a shell game, it said it's not clear which one it would be. I read it to say it's not clear which one the reps will choose for confirmation.

[AUloggerhead 2,244]

It includes allowing confirmation votes for three nominees for the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — Richard Griffin, David McKeague and Susan Neilson — in exchange for Henry Saad's nomination to that court being withdrawn. Democrats also would not block confirmation of one of the four remaining filibustered nominees: Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, William Myers and William Pryor, although it is not clear which one would be chosen for confirmation.

You're right. I misread it. It's even more odious -- they're suggesting a "compromise" which would block 3 of 4, and not saying which one they would approve. As I stated earlier, Frist would be a fool to accept this magnanimous bipartisan offer.

Al, do you see a problem at all with the fillibuster being used to block judicial nominees from even being voted on? Forget for a moment which party is in power. A super majority is not required by the Constitution to approve a President's choice for nominee. Fillibusters have never been used in this manner before Bush was elected. If this issue were to end up before the Supreme Court, which do you think would prevail: the Constitution or Senate rules?

I'm in agreement with you regarding the "recycling" of nominees. If a nominee has been voted down once, I think it's a waste of Senate time to vote on the same nominee. Now, if there has never been a vote in the first place ... that is a completely different situation.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Good. Why would the Dems try to negotiate unless they knew they were on the losing side. Which they are, of course, but still..... Good for the GOP. They're in the majority because the Americans put them there. About damn time they started ACTING like they ran the place, 'cause they do.

[TrueBlue72 0]

Whine away, libbies!!! Frist doesn't HAVE to negotiate; he has a clear majority and the ability to use the "Byrd option" (named properly for the last majority leader to use it) rather than the "nuclear option" as the demoncrat whiners want to call it.

Why should Frist "negotiate" (read give away the advantage that the voters gave his party in the last election) and allow the minority party to dictate court nominees? That would be stupid and any majority leader who would fall for such a transparent ploy should be summarily dismissed.

Now is the time to nominate conservative judges who will interpret the constitution as written and stop legislating from the bench.

[Tiger Al 0]

Now is the time to nominate conservative judges who will interpret the constitution as written and stop legislating from the bench.

I hear you people crying about this all the time. Exactly, how is the Constitution being "misinterpreted" by the "activist" judges? What legislation is coming from the bench?

[Tigermike 3,042]

What's wrong with EVERY VOTE COUNTS! ?

[Tiger Al 0]

Al, do you see a problem at all with the fillibuster being used to block judicial nominees from even being voted on? Forget for a moment which party is in power. A super majority is not required by the Constitution to approve a President's choice for nominee. Fillibusters have never been used in this manner before Bush was elected. If this issue were to end up before the Supreme Court, which do you think would prevail: the Constitution or Senate rules?

Sure I do. I also see a problem with the practice of "anonymous holds," the use of the "blue slip" system and other stalling tactics that kept 65 of Clinton's nominations from even getting a hearing between 1996 and 2000, much less an up or down vote by a simple majority or even a super majority. Ironically, or not, all of these methods for delay by the minority party were done away with since 2002 by Orrin Hatch. That leaves only two options for the minority to use when the majority tries to force radical nominees who are out of the mainstream into lifetime judicial appointments: Compromise and the filibuster. The first has failed for the Democrats so far. The republicans want to force ALL of these radicals into the courts. That leaves us with the filibuster.

Contrary to your belief, it has been threatened and used to block judicial nominees before. Fortas, Sarokin, Paez and Berzon were filibustered. Paez, after having his nomination on "anonymous hold" for FOUR YEARS by republicans!!! I'll leave you now to ponder the words of New Hampshire republican Senator Bob Smith as he spoke on the Senate floor:

I do not want to hear that I am going down some trail the Senate has never gone down before by talking about these judges and delaying. It is simply not true. I resent any argument to the contrary because it is simply not true.

Don't pontificate on the floor of the Senate and tell me that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States of America by blocking a judge or filibustering a judge that I don't think deserves to be on the circuit court. That is my responsibility. That is my advice and consent role, and I intend to exercise it.

[Tigermike 3,042]

Sure I do. I also see a problem with the practice of "anonymous holds," the use of the "blue slip" system and other stalling tactics that kept 65 of Clinton's nominations from even getting a hearing between 1996 and 2000,

157573[/snapback]

Now we get to the heart of the matter. It is all just a pay back. How pathetically petty.

[Tiger Al 0]

Sure I do. I also see a problem with the practice of "anonymous holds," the use of the "blue slip" system and other stalling tactics that kept 65 of Clinton's nominations from even getting a hearing between 1996 and 2000,

157573[/snapback]

Now we get to the heart of the matter. It is all just a pay back. How pathetically petty.

157575[/snapback]

No, Tigermike, not payback. Stop acting so shallow when you're not. These things have always been Senate protocol and have been used by both sides. Neither is innocent historically. They were rules put in place to protect the minority and have been used by each party when it was the minority. As I said, the only defense left to the minority now is the filibuster because once republicans got control of the Senate in 2002, Hatch did away with rules that had historically helped the minority. Check it out for yourself and stop feigning victimhood.

[Piglet 0]

Good. Why would the Dems try to negotiate unless they knew they were on the losing side. Which they are, of course, but still..... Good for the GOP.  They're in the majority because the Americans put them there. About damn time they started ACTING like they ran the place, 'cause they do.

157548[/snapback]

Man, so this is what happens when you bring an olive branch to the table with the GOP. It gets interpreted as a sign of weakness, and they'll go for the jugular on you.

Not that I'm surprised. Any Democrat who tries to cooperate or defer gets immediately targeted for defeat by the Republicans. Bipartisanship, even common courtesy is foreign to a GOP that is downright drunk with power.

Well, if that's the bed you want to make, don't be surprised if the Democrats decide to play hardball partisanship back atcha. You ain't leaving them much of a choice.

[WarTim 3,456]

There is not now, nor has there EVER been, a "thing" that could be considered a "bipartisan liberal".

Simply impossible.

They, and only they, know what is best for us.

[MDM4AU 332]

Good. Why would the Dems try to negotiate unless they knew they were on the losing side. Which they are, of course, but still..... Good for the GOP.  They're in the majority because the Americans put them there. About damn time they started ACTING like they ran the place, 'cause they do.

157548[/snapback]

Man, so this is what happens when you bring an olive branch to the table with the GOP. It gets interpreted as a sign of weakness, and they'll go for the jugular on you.

Not that I'm surprised. Any Democrat who tries to cooperate or defer gets immediately targeted for defeat by the Republicans. Bipartisanship, even common courtesy is foreign to a GOP that is downright drunk with power.

Well, if that's the bed you want to make, don't be surprised if the Democrats decide to play hardball partisanship back atcha. You ain't leaving them much of a choice.

157612[/snapback]

It's amazing that you could interchange Dem for Republican, etc. and this would be just as acurate if you really want to take a "libertarian" or "moderate" or even a neutral viewpoint on this. Pick just about any issue. It's called politics whether we like it or not. It's a two way street. To act any diffrent is to be hypocritical. I don't like it, but that is the way it is.

[MDM4AU 332]

"Frist and Reid both acknowledge they are constantly negotiating, trying to find a solution in which the Senate does not have a showdown."

157524[/snapback]

Translated: Reid makes a conciliatory offer that Frist refuses. Frist then counters with a non-negotiable offer.

157525[/snapback]

To hear you tell it, anyway.

157526[/snapback]

No, to hear Frist tell it, Einstein.

But Frist, earlier in the day, said he would not accept any deal that keeps his Republican majority from confirming judicial nominees that the Senate Judiciary Committee has approved.

Frist also would not discuss specifics, but said he would not advocate the withdrawal of any judicial nominee and would continue to insist they all get confirmation votes. "That would mean people in the past as well as the future," Frist said.

157529[/snapback]

Nice one. I point out that both sides are continuing to negotiate (as the article states)- which to most people with an IQ of 70 or higher could understand that it is not all non-negotiable. You translate it with your spin and call it absolute fact. I call it opinionated. You then get your thong in a bunch and result to name calling.

I think AUloggerhead summed up most of my thoughts on this issue. Even the part about those nominees from the past. But, that's my opinion. I'm sure you disagree, but what else is new.

[Tiger Al 0]

Whine away, libbies!!!  Frist doesn't HAVE to negotiate; he has a clear majority and the ability to use the "Byrd option" (named properly for the last majority leader to use it) rather than the "nuclear option" as the demoncrat whiners want to call it. 

157551[/snapback]

Actually, TrueBlue72, the term "nuclear option" is what the whiney republicans call what they'll do if the demoncrat whiners do what they've threatened to do. We call that "filibuster." Whiney republican focus groups have since found out that Americans don't support the "nuclear option" but, confused as whiney republicans are wont to be, they thought it was the NAME that Americans opposed so now they call it the "constitutional option." Pretty clever, huh?

When they order their Happy Meals they're sure to ask for the "constitutional option" which means they also want "Freedom Fries" with their toy.

[AUloggerhead 2,244]

Link

Filibuster myth-busters

By Wendy E. Long

If you were a senator, whose views would be more important to you: liberal special-interest groups, or registered voters?

The liberal groups demand that Democrats filibuster (prevent the Senate from voting on) some of President Bush's best-qualified nominees to the federal appeals courts. But a recent Ayres McHenry nationwide survey reveals that 82 percent of registered voters believe well-qualified nominees deserve a Senate vote. That includes 85 percent of Republicans, 81 percent of Democrats, and 81 percent of Independents.

Some Senators apparently believe voters won't see through partisan obstructionism. But they can't possibly believe the other myths about the filibuster.

    Myth No. 1:Filibuster of judges is a sacred tradition.

    Fact: The filibuster is nowhere in the Constitution. It is not among the "checks and balances" our Founding Fathers created. It did not even exist until the 1830s, and the "tradition" involves legislation, not judicial appointments. The filibuster was used to defend slavery and oppose the Civil Rights Act — hardly noble purposes. The current obstruction of judges is no "traditional" filibuster: it is the first time in more than 200 years that either party has filibustered to keep judges with majority support off the federal bench.

    Myth No. 2: Mr. Bush's nominees are being treated no differently than other presidents' nominees.

    Fact: In the last Congress, 10 of the president's 34 appellate nominees were filibustered — the lowest confirmation rate since FDR. Democrats mask their sabotage of these nominees by citing the confirmation rate of judges to federal courts overall — an irrelevant statistic, because the federal courts of appeal make final rulings on most issues of constitutional law. Liberals also argue that Abe Fortas was not confirmed as Chief Justice in 1968. But Mr. Fortas was opposed by a Senate majority (both Republicans and Democrats), and President Johnson withdrew the nomination. Today, a Senate majority supports the nominees, and the president is not withdrawing them.

    Myth No. 3: The Senate has a "co-equal" role with the president in judicial nominations.

    Fact: The Constitution expressly gives the president — and only the president — the power to nominate federal judges. All the Senate can do is say "yes" or "no" to the president's choices. That is the "check" in the "checks-and-balances" system, to make sure no unqualified nominee becomes a federal judge. It does not give Senators — and a minority of Senators at that — the power to insist on judges who suit their own ideology.

  Myth No. 4: The current filibuster is about "free speech."

    Fact: Historically, the filibuster has given senators in the minority a chance to speak on the Senate floor before the majority rushes to pass a bill. But the current filibuster is not about the right to speak out. It is about blocking judges. These nominees have been pending for months — some for years. There has been, and remains, ample time to speak about them. The majority welcomes free speech and free debate — followed by a free vote.

    Myth No. 5: The filibuster protects "the right of the minority" to veto nominees.

    Fact: The Constitution requires two-thirds vote for certain things. Appointing judges is not one of them. So the basic principle of democracy applies: The majority decides. The filibuster of judicial nominees turns majority rule on its head, because 41of 100 senators can keep a judge off the bench without ever even voting.

    A liberal minority needs federal judges to advance their agenda — allowing child pornography as free speech, mandating same-sex marriage, removing "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, banning school prayer and preventing the death penalty for murderers and terrorists — because they can't win these issues at the ballot box. Mr. Bush promised to nominate judges who will apply the law as written and stay out of politics. The recent Ayres survey shows 67 percent of voters agree that "we should take politics out of the courts and out of the confirmation process." A full 61 percent of Democrats agree with this statement, as well as 73 percent of Independents and 69 percent of Republicans.

    The American people want senators to do the job our tax dollars pay them to do. Senators who fail to do their jobs — either by failing to show up for their committee meetings, by voting against restoring the Senate tradition of up-or-down votes for judges, or by halting the work of the federal government — might find themselves out of work when they really need the consent of the governed: at their next election.

   

Wendy E. Long is counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, a former Clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas and former press secretary to former Sens. Gordon Humphrey and Bill Armstrong.

There is no doubt that past presidential nominees have been blocked or stalled in committee. That doesn't justify the current obstructionism we see today. When there is a backlog of cases to hear, it makes no sense to stall the judicial nominee process for partisan purposes. As an Independent, I really want to see a stop to all the shenanigans regarding the appointment of judges, and I don't care who's in the WH or which party controls the Senate. Let the President nominate, let the Senators vote on the nominees within a reasonable time period, and let the majority rule.

[Tiger Al 0]

There is no doubt that past presidential nominees have been blocked or stalled in committee. That doesn't justify the current obstructionism we see today. When there is a backlog of cases to hear, it makes no sense to stall the judicial nominee process for partisan purposes. As an Independent, I really want to see a stop to all the shenanigans regarding the appointment of judges, and I don't care who's in the WH or which party controls the Senate. Let the President nominate, let the Senators vote on the nominees within a reasonable time period, and let the majority rule.

According to the Senate Judiciary Committee website, there is only a 3.4% vacancy among judges, US district AND circuit combined. For some perspective, if I were railing about the unacceptably high unemployment rate of 3.4% I'd get laughed off this board. More judges couldn't hurt, but any backlogs could probably also be attributed to an increase in caseload and the time involved to hear a case.

As to the last sentence in your statement, are you saying that you REALLY wouldn't want the republicans (or INDEPENDENTS) to do whatever was in their power to challenge a nominee who they felt was so in the fringe as to be unacceptable? If, in 2008, the republicans had suddenly lost control in Congress and the White House, and President Hillary Rodham Clinton, let's say for argument, nominated a few of the most radical feminazis she could find, you wouldn't want the republicans to do whatever was in their power to block them?

Regardless of your answer, I would be upset if HRC nominated people who were that far out there to begin with.

[AUloggerhead 2,244]

... As to the last sentence in your statement, are you saying that you REALLY wouldn't want the republicans (or INDEPENDENTS) to do whatever was in their power to challenge a nominee who they felt was so in the fringe as to be unacceptable? If, in 2008, the republicans had suddenly lost control in Congress and the White House, and President Hillary Rodham Clinton, let's say for argument, nominated a few of the most radical feminazis she could find, you wouldn't want the republicans to do whatever was in their power to block them?

Regardless of your answer, I would be upset if HRC nominated people who were that far out there to begin with.

157790[/snapback]

I mean exactly what I wrote: let the President nominate, let the Senators advise & consent through their debates, and then let the majority rule through a proper vote. If minority party members object to a certain nominee, then let's hear their argument on the floor of the Sentate why the nominee should not be confirmed. If they are persuasive enough in their arguments then they should be able to turn some votes their way. If they can't get a majority, too bad & better luck next time. This is exactly what happened to Abe Fortas. In a Democrat-controlled Senate, a majority of Republican & Democrat Senators opposed a Democrat President's nominee. Rather than see him rejected outright, Johnson pulled Fortas's name.

I'm taking a long-term view -- if perchance a President Hillary nominated some outrageous "radical feminazis" (your words, not mine) to high court positions, then I would look to the Senate to do the right thing and vote them down. If the Senate didn't do that, I would be looking to vote for new Senators and a new President at the next election. And I'm confident I wouldn't be alone. One way or another, the President & Senators will have to explain their positions in subsequent elections.

[Tiger Al 0]

Now is the time to nominate conservative judges who will interpret the constitution as written and stop legislating from the bench.

I hear you people crying about this all the time. Exactly, how is the Constitution being "misinterpreted" by the "activist" judges? What legislation is coming from the bench?

157559[/snapback]

TrueBlue72???