E-Z-B
CAGiversary!
Dr. Bill "I don't know if tears and sweat can transmit HIV" Frist (R-Tenn) says he will go nukular next Tuesday or Wednesday. I can't wait for the democrats to shut down the senate and bring Bush's legislative agenda to a crawl:
WASHINGTON - Setting the stage for a politically charged showdown, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist announced Friday he will press beginning next week for the first of President Bush’s conservative court nominees long blocked by Democrats.
Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said he was ready. “The time has come for Republican senators to decide whether they will abide by the rules of the Senate, or break those rules for the first time in 217 years,” he said in a written statement.
The announcement cleared the way for a momentous showdown that blends constitutional and political issues — the meaning of Congress’ power to advise and consent in a president’s nominees and the ability of a political minority to influence the outcome. And while the clash nominally applies only to appeals court judges that Democrats oppose, Republicans hope to use it to eliminate the ability of democrats to block a vote on any future Supreme Court nominee.
Democrats refused to allow a yes-or-no vote on 10 of Bush’s first-term appeals court nominees. The president renominated seven of them this year, Owen and Brown among them, and Democrats vowed to block their confirmation once again.
Barring a deal, Frist said he would make a procedural move that would allow a filibuster on a judicial nominee to be halted with a majority vote rather than the current requirement of 60 votes.
The Senate showdown over judicial nominations will begin Wednesday on the Senate floor. But the actually execution of the so-called "nuclear option" would likely not happen until the week of May 23.
Assuming that it is successful, which is uncertain, the Senate could then confirm Owen and Brown with simple majority votes.
Some Republicans uncommitted
Republicans hold 55 seats in the Senate, and can afford six defections and still prevail in the showdown over filibusters on the strength of Vice President Dick Cheney’s tie-breaking vote. So far, GOP Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island have announced they will break ranks, and many vote-counters say they expect GOP Sen. Olympia Snowe to vote with the Democrats.
Several other Republicans — enough to tip the outcome — remain publicly uncommitted.
Frist signaled weeks ago he would make Owen a pivotal figure in the struggle to confirm Bush’s nominees.
“She has received praise from both parties,” he said in remarks before a group of religious conservatives rallying against what they called a “filibuster against people of faith.”
Democrats have a different view, arguing that she is an ultraconservative activist who uses the bench to rule against consumers, working people and minors who want abortions.
But a Democratic review of her record depicts her as “bringing her extreme ideological agenda to the bench.”
Frist made no mention of five other nominees whom Democrats have blocked.
One senior Republican aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, outlined a complicated scenario likely to play out over as much as a week or two.
Initially, this aide said, Frist will inaugurate a lengthy period of debate over Owen and Brown without seeking a confirmation vote. After perhaps a few days, he intends to seek a test vote on one of the two women that Republicans hope will demonstrate majority support.
If Democrats then refuse to allow a final yes or no vote, this aide said Frist is prepared to seek a parliamentary ruling to establish a new procedure to cover confirmation of all appeals court and Supreme Court nominees — a fixed amount of time for debate followed by a vote, no filibuster permitted.
Frist concedes to constitutional point
The fate of that proposal will determine which side prevails — whether Bush’s nominees will be guaranteed a yes or no vote, or whether Democrats will retain the right to block them.
“Members must decide if their legacy to the Senate is to eliminate the filibuster’s barrier to the constitutional responsibility of all senators to advise and consent with fair, up-or-down votes,” Frist’s statement said.
Democrats dispute the contention that the Constitution requires a yes-or-no vote, and Frist himself conceded the point on the Senate floor on Thursday in an exchange with Democratic Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia.
“The answer is no, the language is not there,” he said.
Moreover, Reid said in his statement that if there were such a requirement, “more than 60 of President Clinton’s nominees had their rights violated.” He referred to dozens of nominations that Clinton sent to the GOP-controlled Senate over six years, only to have them disappear into the Judiciary Committee and never emerge.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7844779/
WASHINGTON - Setting the stage for a politically charged showdown, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist announced Friday he will press beginning next week for the first of President Bush’s conservative court nominees long blocked by Democrats.
Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said he was ready. “The time has come for Republican senators to decide whether they will abide by the rules of the Senate, or break those rules for the first time in 217 years,” he said in a written statement.
The announcement cleared the way for a momentous showdown that blends constitutional and political issues — the meaning of Congress’ power to advise and consent in a president’s nominees and the ability of a political minority to influence the outcome. And while the clash nominally applies only to appeals court judges that Democrats oppose, Republicans hope to use it to eliminate the ability of democrats to block a vote on any future Supreme Court nominee.
Democrats refused to allow a yes-or-no vote on 10 of Bush’s first-term appeals court nominees. The president renominated seven of them this year, Owen and Brown among them, and Democrats vowed to block their confirmation once again.
Barring a deal, Frist said he would make a procedural move that would allow a filibuster on a judicial nominee to be halted with a majority vote rather than the current requirement of 60 votes.
The Senate showdown over judicial nominations will begin Wednesday on the Senate floor. But the actually execution of the so-called "nuclear option" would likely not happen until the week of May 23.
Assuming that it is successful, which is uncertain, the Senate could then confirm Owen and Brown with simple majority votes.
Some Republicans uncommitted
Republicans hold 55 seats in the Senate, and can afford six defections and still prevail in the showdown over filibusters on the strength of Vice President Dick Cheney’s tie-breaking vote. So far, GOP Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island have announced they will break ranks, and many vote-counters say they expect GOP Sen. Olympia Snowe to vote with the Democrats.
Several other Republicans — enough to tip the outcome — remain publicly uncommitted.
Frist signaled weeks ago he would make Owen a pivotal figure in the struggle to confirm Bush’s nominees.
“She has received praise from both parties,” he said in remarks before a group of religious conservatives rallying against what they called a “filibuster against people of faith.”
Democrats have a different view, arguing that she is an ultraconservative activist who uses the bench to rule against consumers, working people and minors who want abortions.
But a Democratic review of her record depicts her as “bringing her extreme ideological agenda to the bench.”
Frist made no mention of five other nominees whom Democrats have blocked.
One senior Republican aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, outlined a complicated scenario likely to play out over as much as a week or two.
Initially, this aide said, Frist will inaugurate a lengthy period of debate over Owen and Brown without seeking a confirmation vote. After perhaps a few days, he intends to seek a test vote on one of the two women that Republicans hope will demonstrate majority support.
If Democrats then refuse to allow a final yes or no vote, this aide said Frist is prepared to seek a parliamentary ruling to establish a new procedure to cover confirmation of all appeals court and Supreme Court nominees — a fixed amount of time for debate followed by a vote, no filibuster permitted.
Frist concedes to constitutional point
The fate of that proposal will determine which side prevails — whether Bush’s nominees will be guaranteed a yes or no vote, or whether Democrats will retain the right to block them.
“Members must decide if their legacy to the Senate is to eliminate the filibuster’s barrier to the constitutional responsibility of all senators to advise and consent with fair, up-or-down votes,” Frist’s statement said.
Democrats dispute the contention that the Constitution requires a yes-or-no vote, and Frist himself conceded the point on the Senate floor on Thursday in an exchange with Democratic Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia.
“The answer is no, the language is not there,” he said.
Moreover, Reid said in his statement that if there were such a requirement, “more than 60 of President Clinton’s nominees had their rights violated.” He referred to dozens of nominations that Clinton sent to the GOP-controlled Senate over six years, only to have them disappear into the Judiciary Committee and never emerge.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7844779/
and here I thought the Vs. forum have finally made the front page.
