Senators (Byrd and Warner) Work on Filibuster Compromise

[Freddie Stubbs]

WASHINGTON - Two of the Senate's senior statesmen, Republican John Warner and Democrat Robert Byrd, are stepping to the forefront of efforts to avert a showdown over whether an out-of-power party can use Senate filibusters to effectively thwart a president from reshaping the nation's courts to his liking.

But time was running out on Byrd and Warner's attempt to bridge warring senatorial factions, with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., starting a countdown Friday on how long senators would debate Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen's nomination to the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

If senators are forced to vote next week on Owen's nomination to the New Orleans-based court, centrists say a historic confrontation is sure to follow over whether filibusters of appellate and Supreme Court nominees should be prohibited during the rest of the Bush presidency.

"Once you start into the procedural votes, the real procedural votes on the first judge, then it's going to be very difficult to put the genie back into the bottle," said Sen. Mike DeWine (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio. "I think most of us look at that as once you have that first vote, it's going to be very difficult to get a deal done."

more: http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050520/ap_on_go_co/filibuster_fight_89

[Warren Stupidity]

1. stop. the. wimpy. bullshit.

The compromise involves caving in on almost all of the lunatic right wing religious nutcase appointments. Grow some f'n balls. See Barbara Boxer for details.

Stop negotiating with terrorists.

Stop reaching out to meet intolerance halfway.

Fight dammit.

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. Even Barbara Boxer compramises

She did on the REAL ID and Iraq Appropriation bill.

[Zhade]

28. You just love twisting the knife, don't you?

I know this will be deleted, but I can't BELIEVE the mods haven't seen through you by now.

[Freddie Stubbs]

36. I love bringing people back to reality

What is wrong with pointing out the inconsistencies of people's arguments?

[Zhade]

37. Nothing. But we both know that's not the issue.

However, since this is going to go nowhere, and you actually might not be a freeper, I should probably just ignore your posts if I have nothing useful to add or argue.

Peace to you, no matter who you really are.

[Zeebo]

2. Don't give them a freakin inch!!! 90% of the judges confirmed under

bushiter reign probably shouldn't have been confirmed either. If they compromise on this I will be disgusted.

[Freddie Stubbs]

3. They get 100% of Bush's judges if they push through the nuclear option

How exactly is that a good thing? :shrug:

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. Following your plan democrats get absolutley nothing

How exactly is that a good thing? :shrug:

[w4rma]

32. Because at least the facade that Dems have *any* power would be gone. (nt)

[0007]

15. It is a good thing because they stood up for what is right and

didn't back down. Plus they have 70% of public opinion on their side.

[Freddie Stubbs]

20. The public doesn't give a crap about revisions to Senate rules

This isn't the type of issue that will motivate anyone except for the most partisan of voters.

[Zhade]

29. Nope. You're wrong.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200504270007

The Post/ABC News poll asked two questions relating to the "nuclear option." The first question: "The Senate has confirmed 35 federal appeals court judges nominated by Bush, while Senate Democrats have blocked 10 others. Do you think the Senate Democrats are right or wrong to block these nominations?" Forty-eight percent responded that Democrats were right to do so, 36 percent believed they were wrong to do so, 3 percent said it was "right in some cases, wrong in others," and 13 percent had no opinion. The second question: "Would you support or oppose changing Senate rules to make it easier for the Republicans to confirm Bush's judicial nominees?" It found that 66 percent oppose changing the rules, 26 percent support it, and 8 percent have no opinion.

On April 26, Wall Street Journal OpinionJournal.com editor James Taranto asserted that the Post poll was "phony" because neither question on judicial nominations "used the word filibuster" or "even described the procedure."

But other polls that have specifically mentioned the filibuster also indicate majority opposition to the "nuclear option." An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll conducted March 31-April 3 found that 50 percent of respondents believe the Senate should "maintain the filibuster rule" compared to 40 percent who believe the Senate should "eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominations." A Newsweek poll conducted March 17-18 (summarized here) found that 57 percent of respondents oppose "changing Senate rules to take away the filibuster and allow all of George W. Bush's judicial nominees to get voted on by the Senate," compared to 32 percent who favor it.

More at link.

[0007]

31. Sez you? You have no idea!

[LightningFlash]

33. No, you're wrong about that.

The nucleur option removes the fillibuster alltogether. The reason it is such a hot issue is that if....

If the filibuster goes, so does all debate on Judicial appointees, Legal reforms, and other matters of the Senate. If they are no longer allowed to use the fillibuster, the republican leadership will be allowed to appoint almost anyone they want without need of votes.

They will be allowed to get away with almost any agenda they want, write any laws to force on the people that they want, and cause wars without checks and balances.

It is not just about some *extreme* judges, its about the Senate rules which allow it to function as a democracy. The filibuster has been there since before this time and it must NOT be touched!

[Avalux]

4. NO

no compromise. It's either showdown time now or later. I want it now.

[jazzjunkysue]

5. They've given us no reason to compromise. They want to send the

dems home without their dinner. Make all the dems totally powerless. If they break the rules, I hope the dems walk the hell right out of the room, and go right out to do press conferences.

If the system doesn't work on one judge, it doesn't work at all. This is about the system, not the judges. Defend the system. Show the country who these nuclear people are. Give them all the rope they need to hang themselves along with the contitution.

I really, really don't think they'll do it. I think it's all posturing.

Call their bluff.

[pinkpops]

8. I'm not sure that they are bluffing, but I agree that the time to

stand firm has come. A "compromise" would leave the issue unsettled, as there would necessarily be vague language, such as Dems would only use the filibuster in "extreme" cases. Also, as the Senators come and go, a gentleman's agreement (as opposed to actual RULES) would hold no water.

[deadparrot]

6. Did I read that right, about

"whether filibusters of appellate and Supreme Court nominees should be prohibited during the rest of the Bush presidency."

So...granted, I'm not as up on this issue as I should be, but are they serious that this only applies to a ** presidency? If a Democrat wins in 2008, will the filibuster for judicial nominees magically reappear?

[kaygore]

9. Looks that way

If the filibuster is ended, I do hope that the Democrats have the balls to walk out and to refuse to come back until the Senate returns to the rules that they themselves made.

I also agree that there is no compromise with these people. This is what happened when people think that God chooses sides. This is what happens when power corrupts absolutely!

[Virginian]

11. So that's it.

I was wondering why they weren't afraid of being shut out if Dems won the next election.

This is crap. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. I am sick of these laws that apply to one person or one president.
Laws should be applied equally.

[DemBeans]

17. that sentence jumped out at me, too

What in the HELL is so special about the Bush presidency that we need to suspend every rule of conduct for this immoral bastard?

He can plunge us into war, loot the treasury, stack the courts...and then when he's gone, the rules of civilized society are returned?

I swear to God, Karl Rove must have the goods on just about everyone in Washington. Blackmail is the only reason I can think of that this ninny gets away with this crap.

[Virginian]

30. So why all the beating around the bush?

Why don't they just come out and say it.
There will be no more votes on Appellate or Supreme Court nominees. All judges nominated by President George W. Bush will automatically have Senate approval without a vote.

[TahitiNut]

7. The Dems ALREADY 'compromised'!!!

Over 205 extremists approved and only 10 ultra-extremists blocked!!

Take that fucking 'compromise' and stick it where the sun don't shine!

This is where "bipartisan cooperation" gets you when the Reich just keeps driving for more and more power. They don't give a "quid" for the "quo"!!

[AndyTiedye]

10. They Are Trying To Negotiate The Terms of Our Surrender

to the all-powerful Republican Party.


We had been hoping that we might be able to block John Ashcroft
from the Supreme Court, (even if ** then turned around and appointed
Gonzales to the seat) but it seems that even that is too much to ask.

[Voltaire99]

14. Once more, Centrist Dems prepare to bend over for the GOP

So much for resistance! From Iraq to the Patriot Act to Bush appointees to "terror," they really can't keep a grip on the soap, can they?

If this "compromise" is agreed, the Democrats can kiss off electoral hopes for another generation.

Not only will it signal that this is the party of surrender monkeys. It will also seal the fate of free elections and our rights and liberties.

Fight, you centrist wimps. Fight or to hell with you.

[0007]

16. My feelings exactly!

[Freddie Stubbs]

21. Robert Byrd is a centrist?

:shrug:

[Voltaire99]

23. It's not the left...

...volunteering to consent to Bush's judges, Freddie me bucko.

[dchill]

18. I got your compromise right here...

Don't nominate any more unqualified racist homophobe corporate shills to lifetime appointments and we won't filibuster them.

How about that, Mr. Frist?

[LightningFlash]

34. Doctor Frist wants to take over.....

To him the phrase Majority Rules is a real term. He's completely out of his collective mind and working for the special interests of the council.....

[yellowcanine]

22. Bullshit, Mike DeWine...""Once you start into the procedural votes, the

real procedural votes on the first judge, then it's going to be very difficult to put the genie back into the bottle,"

If someone is dead, you can't undo that. If someone gets fucked, you can't undo that. But a vote you can undo. So don't give me that shit.

[snippy]

24. I think the democrats should take a compromise if they can get one.

But I doubt that any compromise is possible because I doubt that there are six republican Senators with the courage to vote against the republican fanatics.

If no compromise is reached the republicans will win this fight and no filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee will be possible if Bush gets to nominate someone who will change the balance of the Court. The democrats need to be able to threaten to filibuster such a Supreme Court nominee and to carry out that threat. Without the possibility of that threat Bush will nominate someone far worse than anyone who is now or has ever been on the Supreme Court. That could do more serious and lasting damage to this country than anything else Bush has done.

An additional reason I would like to see a compromise (given that the republicans will otherwise win) is that the American people like to see Congress reach agreement across party lines. If a compromise is reached, the Reich wing republican fanatics will rise up on their hind legs and howl with vitriolic hatred and fury. Many Americans will feel revulsion and shame for ever having voted for the party of these people. Democrats will appear to be reasonable adults and republicans will appear to be unreasonable brats. Democrats can benefit from this not only in the 2006 elections but also in future battles in Congress between now and then.

[not fooled]

25. Anyway, as Bernie Ward points out...

...the 'pukes don't give a rat's ass about these few extremist Federal judges. They are playing for bigger stakes, i.e. the SCOTUS.

They are just using these judge cases now to get rid of dem opposition so they can do worse later, i.e. make Scalia or Thomas chief justice and then appoint radical extremists to fill any vacancies.

Plus, once the filibuster is gone, the path is clear for them to enact unpopular legislation such as killing off social security, etc. etc. etc. (think of any crackpot ideas they want to force on the country against its will) once they control it all. Now THAT will be scary.

[Stinky The Clown]

26. NO FUCKING DEALS .... NO FUCKING COMPROMISE

Its Line in the Sand time, boys and girls.

There is NO chance for a meaningful and inclusive compromise, so stop trying.

Walk the fuck out, Dems, and stay gone untl 2006.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3697382

[Zhade]

27. "centrists say" - hey, guys, EVERYONE'S saying it.

You're not special, or even very insightful. This situation is blindingly obvious to anyone following it.

Weird tip of the hat to "centrists" in the piece. What was the point of that?

[ninkasi]

35. Not that any of the politicians

give a rat's ass what I think, but my opinion is...no compromise. No surrender. We give them nothing. They have taken, and taken, and taken, and are now trying to take what tiny bit of power we might have left.

I am not rich enough for my opinion to carry any weight; I can't promise enough of a campaign donation, or have the clout to raise enough money, to have any of the men or women who are supposed to represent me care.

If we are to lose, I would much rather lose drawing as much blood and inflicting as much harm as I could, then simply lying down, baring my throat, and handing them the dagger.