Filibuster Deal

[DKW 86 7,441]

Link

Senators Said to Reach Filibuster Deal By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent

7 minutes ago

Centrists from both parties reached a compromise Monday night to avoid a showdown on President Bush's stalled judicial nominees and the Senate's own filibuster rules, officials from both parties said.

These officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the agreement would clear the way for yes-or-no votes on some of Bush's nominees, but make no guarantee.

Under the agreement, Democrats would pledge not to filibuster any of Bush's future appeals court or Supreme Court nominees except in "extraordinary circumstances."

For their part, Republicans agreed not to support an attempt to strip Democrats of their right to block votes.

Under the agreement, Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, nominated to a seat on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, would advance to a final confirmation vote.

Senate Republican leader Bill Frist has made her a test vote in a bruising showdown over the fate of several appeals courts nominees that Democrats blocked in the past and had threatened to block again.

With the series of climatic vote set for Tuesday, compromise-minded senators of both parties met in the office of Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., for a last stab at compromise

They arranged to make a formal anouncement at a news conference

[AURaptor 1,126]

The GOP is spineless

Force the filibuster. Show what arrogant ,extremist the Left really are.

Change the rules. It's been done before, it'll be done again. Nothing in the least bit threatening about that at all.

These judges aren't in the LEAST BIT ' out of the main stream' , unless you live in Europe.

Looks like 3 will get an up / down vote. They'll be approved, and the Dems will be forced to choke on their own words about how 'extreme' these new appellete judges are now.

[Piglet 0]

Terrific. With Vichy Democrats like this, who needs Republicans at all?

congratulations, you conservatives. I told you you didn't have much to worry about--the Dems yelled a little, then rolled over and gave away the store, as usual. Maybe they think the Republicans will like them if they just promise not to filibuster.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Terrific.  With Vichy Democrats like this, who needs Republicans at all? 

congratulations, you conservatives.  I told you you didn't have much to worry about--the Dems yelled a little, then rolled over and gave away the store, as usual. Maybe they think the Republicans will like them if they just promise not to filibuster.

160729[/snapback]

Nice try, Pig. This is a clear victory for the Dems who not only will snuff out some of W's nominees outright, but it also sank Frist's (absurd) notions of running for the W.H. in '08. You can put on a sour face all day long, but on in the inside, we all know you're smugly laughing as the Dems orchestrated this important victory.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Why does part of me think that if neither side likes it, it's probably a good thing?

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Why does part of me think that if neither side likes it, it's probably a good thing?

160746[/snapback]

Agreed. 14 of the most reasonable people in the Senate met in the middle. The Senate was designed to have a cooling effect.

The nation is close to 50/50. In such a climate it isn't good to have winner take all-- in either direction.

[DKW 86 7,441]

I think there are too many undecided things here.

These officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the agreement would clear the way for yes-or-no votes on some of Bush's nominees, but make no guarantee.

Under the agreement, Democrats would pledge not to filibuster any of Bush's future appeals court or Supreme Court nominees except in "extraordinary circumstances."

Anyone got a clue what exactly this means and just how these folks define these terms? I bet it falls apart as soon as the second one gets approved.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

I bet it falls apart as soon as the second one gets approved.

160759[/snapback]

How much?

[WarTim 3,457]

Wise men will never make a deal with the DEVIL. This was just an atempt to put the libs high on a ladder so that the FALL will be great.

The "deal" will not hold an the NUKES will drop in the Senate....Count on it.

[Tigermike 3,054]

I think there are too many undecided things here.

These officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the agreement would clear the way for yes-or-no votes on some of Bush's nominees, but make no guarantee.

Under the agreement, Democrats would pledge not to filibuster any of Bush's future appeals court or Supreme Court nominees except in "extraordinary circumstances."

Anyone got a clue what exactly this means and just how these folks define these terms? I bet it falls apart as soon as the second one gets approved.

160759[/snapback]

I was wondering about that statement when I first read the article. From the rhetoric we have been hearing over the past 6, 8, 10 months 2, 3, 4 years of this confirmation process, the Dems were already faced with "extraordinary circumstances".

Senators on both sides are hearing from people who want the judges voted on, or those wanting the filibuster to begin. The Dems and their followers are desperate for a victory of any kind and many Repubs are thinking we won, we will do as we want.

[Piglet 0]

Nice try, Pig. This is a clear victory for the Dems who not only will snuff out some of W's  nominees outright, but it also sank Frist's (absurd) notions of running for the W.H. in '08. You can put on a sour face all day long, but on in the inside, we all know you're smugly laughing as the Dems orchestrated  this important victory.

160733[/snapback]

You really ought to drop Ronald Reagan's smiling face from your avatar, AU; it don't suit you. The Gipper was warm and fuzzy at all times, while you can't even act satisfied when you win. You got Pryor, Brown AND Owen--the worst of the worst--quietly allowed to befoul the bench and torch precedents and call it 'restraint', and the so-called opposition party says they won't bother to filibuster any future nominees--God only knows what monsters he'll pick now--and you call that losing.

Here's what I don't get--Democrats are everything a power-hungry Republican party could hope for. They make just enough noise that you get to call it a 'fight', and then they roll over and give you whatever you want, every time. Why, then, do you keep acting like you're about to have an aneurysm in rage and frustration?

Ah, well, I suppose it could be worse. At least you aren't crowing in our faces.

[Tigermike 3,054]

The deal

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and Democratic Leader Reid. This memorandum confirms an understanding among the signatories, based upon mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future judicial nominations in the 109th Congress.

This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the Senate’s Judiciary Committee.

We have agreed to the following:

Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations

A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit).

B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit).

Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations

A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.

B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.

We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word “Advice” speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President’s power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.

Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.

We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold.

http://www.townhall.com/clog/archive/050522.html#092053PM

[TexasTiger 13,028]

I think there are too many undecided things here.

These officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the agreement would clear the way for yes-or-no votes on some of Bush's nominees, but make no guarantee.

Under the agreement, Democrats would pledge not to filibuster any of Bush's future appeals court or Supreme Court nominees except in "extraordinary circumstances."

Anyone got a clue what exactly this means and just how these folks define these terms? I bet it falls apart as soon as the second one gets approved.

160759[/snapback]

I was wondering about that statement when I first read the article. From the rhetoric we have been hearing over the past 6, 8, 10 months 2, 3, 4 years of this confirmation process, the Dems were already faced with "extraordinary circumstances".

Senators on both sides are hearing from people who want the judges voted on, or those wanting the filibuster to begin. The Dems and their followers are desperate for a victory of any kind and many Repubs are thinking we won, we will do as we want.

160772[/snapback]

Only 6 Dems need to break ranks to end a filibuster. Many of these Senators don't really want to fillibuster that much. They maintained party loyalty to a point, but some were ready to move on.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Wise men will never make a deal with the DEVIL.

160771[/snapback]

I didn't know this was about Frist sucking up to Dobson.

[DKW 86 7,441]

I bet it falls apart as soon as the second one gets approved.

160759[/snapback]

How much?

160762[/snapback]

I now see that the magic number appears to be three, Brown, Pryor , and Owen. So lets say the fourth one after further gathering information.

Besides TT, I dont use money, maybe a meal, etc. What do you think?

BTW, want to define "Extraordinary Circumstances?"

[Tigermike 3,054]

BTW, want to define "Extraordinary Circumstances?"

160829[/snapback]

Somewhere in the vicinity of "is"?

[DKW 86 7,441]

BTW, want to define "Extraordinary Circumstances?"

160829[/snapback]

Somewhere in the vicinity of "is"?

160832[/snapback]

:roflol: :roflol:

[AURaptor 1,126]

Agreed. 14 of the most reasonable people in the Senate met in the middle. The Senate was designed to have a cooling effect.

The nation is close to 50/50. In such a climate it isn't good to have winner take all-- in either direction.

There's little to nothing reasonable here at all. Many Americans have worked toward this by getting more and more Republicans elected to Congress. Now a handfull of self absorbed spot light seeking RINOs have thumbed their noses at every American who voted for them, with McCain bearing the full brunt of our disgust. He literally has betrayed the will of the people for his own persoanl glory.

The Left had over 40 yrs to tilt the Judiciary toward their liking, but try to give the Right just 1/2 a chance to even things out, and one can just hear the howeling and whining errupt.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Agreed. 14 of the most reasonable people in the Senate met in the middle. The Senate was designed to have a cooling effect.

The nation is close to 50/50. In such a climate it isn't good to have winner take all-- in either direction.

There's little to nothing reasonable here at all. Many Americans have worked toward this by getting more and more Republicans elected to Congress. Now a handfull of self absorbed spot light seeking RINOs have thumbed their noses at every American who voted for them, with McCain bearing the full brunt of our disgust. He literally has betrayed the will of the people for his own persoanl glory.

The Left had over 40 yrs to tilt the Judiciary toward their liking, but try to give the Right just 1/2 a chance to even things out, and one can just hear the howeling and whining errupt.

160871[/snapback]

Who was appointing judges during those forty years?

[TexasTiger 13,028]

I bet it falls apart as soon as the second one gets approved.

160759[/snapback]

How much?

160762[/snapback]

I now see that the magic number appears to be three, Brown, Pryor , and Owen. So lets say the fourth one after further gathering information.

Besides TT, I dont use money, maybe a meal, etc. What do you think?

BTW, want to define "Extraordinary Circumstances?"

160829[/snapback]

Yeah, see? You got the three you wanted most!

Don't use money? Where do you live, a hippy commune?

Extraordinary Circumstances? Well, that's like obscenity-- I know it when I see it!

[DKW 86 7,441]

I bet it falls apart as soon as the second one gets approved.

160759[/snapback]

How much?

160762[/snapback]

I now see that the magic number appears to be three, Brown, Pryor , and Owen. So lets say the fourth one after further gathering information.

Besides TT, I dont use money, maybe a meal, etc. What do you think?

BTW, want to define "Extraordinary Circumstances?"

160829[/snapback]

Yeah, see? You got the three you wanted most!

Don't use money? Where do you live, a hippy commune?

Extraordinary Circumstances? Well, that's like obscenity-- I know it when I see it!

160894[/snapback]

1) Not my three, my one maybe.

2) I dont bet with cash, I offered a free meal, same difference IMHO. You do get back hame from time to time?

3) That is exactly what I thought, squishy thinking and no real deal was ever set here. The Dems caved in on three nominees.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

I bet it falls apart as soon as the second one gets approved.

160759[/snapback]

How much?

160762[/snapback]

I now see that the magic number appears to be three, Brown, Pryor , and Owen. So lets say the fourth one after further gathering information.

Besides TT, I dont use money, maybe a meal, etc. What do you think?

BTW, want to define "Extraordinary Circumstances?"

160829[/snapback]

Yeah, see? You got the three you wanted most!

Don't use money? Where do you live, a hippy commune?

Extraordinary Circumstances? Well, that's like obscenity-- I know it when I see it!

160894[/snapback]

1) Not my three, my one maybe.

2) I dont bet with cash, I offered a free meal, same difference IMHO. You do get back hame from time to time?

3) That is exactly what I thought, squishy thinking and no real deal was ever set here. The Dems caved in on three nominees.

160905[/snapback]

Closest I've been lately was New Orleans for the Sugar Bowl.

Dems caved on three-- Repubs on four. Okay.

[Tigermike 3,054]

Agreed. 14 of the most reasonable people in the Senate met in the middle. The Senate was designed to have a cooling effect.

The nation is close to 50/50. In such a climate it isn't good to have winner take all-- in either direction.

There's little to nothing reasonable here at all. Many Americans have worked toward this by getting more and more Republicans elected to Congress. Now a handfull of self absorbed spot light seeking RINOs have thumbed their noses at every American who voted for them, with McCain bearing the full brunt of our disgust. He literally has betrayed the will of the people for his own persoanl glory.

The Left had over 40 yrs to tilt the Judiciary toward their liking, but try to give the Right just 1/2 a chance to even things out, and one can just hear the howeling and whining errupt.

160871[/snapback]

Who was appointing judges during those forty years?

160878[/snapback]

The Dems?

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Agreed. 14 of the most reasonable people in the Senate met in the middle. The Senate was designed to have a cooling effect.

The nation is close to 50/50. In such a climate it isn't good to have winner take all-- in either direction.

There's little to nothing reasonable here at all. Many Americans have worked toward this by getting more and more Republicans elected to Congress. Now a handfull of self absorbed spot light seeking RINOs have thumbed their noses at every American who voted for them, with McCain bearing the full brunt of our disgust. He literally has betrayed the will of the people for his own persoanl glory.

The Left had over 40 yrs to tilt the Judiciary toward their liking, but try to give the Right just 1/2 a chance to even things out, and one can just hear the howeling and whining errupt.

160871[/snapback]

Who was appointing judges during those forty years?

160878[/snapback]

The Dems?

160925[/snapback]

First of all, the 40 years of Dem rule was in the House, not the Senate which confirms Judges. Reagan had a Republican Senate for 6 of his 8 years. But even during those 40 years, the Repubs had the WH for 28 of those years, making all appointments.

[Tigermike 3,054]

Agreed. 14 of the most reasonable people in the Senate met in the middle. The Senate was designed to have a cooling effect.

The nation is close to 50/50. In such a climate it isn't good to have winner take all-- in either direction.

There's little to nothing reasonable here at all. Many Americans have worked toward this by getting more and more Republicans elected to Congress. Now a handfull of self absorbed spot light seeking RINOs have thumbed their noses at every American who voted for them, with McCain bearing the full brunt of our disgust. He literally has betrayed the will of the people for his own persoanl glory.

The Left had over 40 yrs to tilt the Judiciary toward their liking, but try to give the Right just 1/2 a chance to even things out, and one can just hear the howeling and whining errupt.

160871[/snapback]

Who was appointing judges during those forty years?

160878[/snapback]

The Dems?

160925[/snapback]

First of all, the 40 years of Dem rule was in the House, not the Senate which confirms Judges. Reagan had a Republican Senate for 6 of his 8 years. But even during those 40 years, the Repubs had the WH for 28 of those years, making all appointments.

160934[/snapback]

And what was the distribution of the Senate?

With all that information, I am led to believe that the Democrats must have appointed and approved a good many activists judges. Judges with an agenda.