Redstate

Republican senators are spineless.  The last election was a waste.  Conservative policies are not going to be advanced by this congress, even with Republicans in the majority.

Well, if it works, fine. Perhaps Frist can convince the Dems to take the stage for their soundbites and videoclips. Give them a chance to whine loudly and then lose the vote. I'm in favor of doing this if it shows the country that the Republicans are willing to "listen" to the concerns of the Dems regarding these nominees. Perhaps it would actually be helpful for the Republicans to have a chance to explain, on the Senate floor, why they support these nominees.

Frist doesn't have the votes to change the rule regarding filibusters.  If he did, he would schedule a vote for Janice Rodgers Brown and Pricilla Owen.

Until he schedules the votes for those two nominees, who already cleared the judiciary committee, we know he doesn't have the votes to change the rule.

Quite simple.

This goes to show that Frist never had the votes to change the rules.

Easier than Reid had to block... but that's why the Dems offered a compromise first.

the dems have had more then enough time to debate.

They can continue their smear campigns using the NYT and Washington Post.

They have an obligation to allow an up or down vote on these judges.

This of course is the typical lefty mindset.  They don't trust the open market, in this case the up or down vote.  If the judges are so horrible, then the right will pay the price in future elections.

has just apparently been played.

Reid is blabbing in response right now.  I missed whether or not he accepted (streaming video painfully slow at work).

I suspect he did not.

I think McCain, Chafee and Snowe are against and Hagel, Collins, Warner and Specter are on the fence.  Frist needs two of those 4 to get to 50 votes.

I know Senator Nelson (D-FL) had been talking about a compromise where after a lengthy debate, the cloture number would drop from 60 to 57, then after another long debate to 54 and finally to 51.

My guess (with no inside knowledge at all) is that Frist is going to offer something like Nelson's plan to Reid in order to placate Warner, Hagel, and Collins who respect the institution but don't agree with the filibustering.  If Reid takes it, they avoid the showdown and Bush's nominees eventually get an up-or-down vote after a lot of publicity.  If Reid says no, then 2 out of the fence-sitters (and maybe even Nelson) will go along with ending the judicial filibuster.

That's my take.

He offered a comprmise to Frist because he knows that he does not have the vote to change the rule and he can't back down.

it just happens to take 60 in the senate. if you dont like it they are free to change the rules, but that takes 67 votes. good luck.

meanwhile the dems will surely point out to the public that 65 of clintons judges didnt get an "up or down vote" and no one was in favor of nuking the senate then.

100 hours is a lot of debate time for a Court of Appeals nominee--the compromise might still make stalling an attractive tactic.  It's not excessive for a Supreme Court nomination.

The Repubs want to get up-or-down votes on all nominees.  The Dems want to retain the judicial filibuster.  Reid offers to hold back the filibuster on two of the current crop of judges, giving Repubs a tiny bit of what they want, while retaining the judicial filibuster.  Frist responds by giving the Dems nothing of what they want (no shelving of the filibuster, no tabling of any of the nominees Dems consider unacceptable).  Instead, he offers them 100 hours of debate, after which a vote can proceed regardless of what is said in that debate.  While Reid's effort was surely a calculated gambit masquerading as a good-faith offer, I fail to see how Frist's counteroffer can even be spun as being made in good faith.

it took a Constitutional supermajority of 2/3 to change Senate rules.  When did that happen?

Your logic is rather flawed.  Your subject line states "they all did get an up or down vote" - which as we all know is fundamentally untrue.  What the Democrats are saying is that simple majority support is not sufficient "advise and consent" - and that they will withhold the Constitutional function of the Senate regarding judicial nominees until such time as said nominees achieve a 60-vote threshhold - certianly a first.

Also, I keep hearing about "65 Clinton judicial nominees who were denied up-or-down votes" (actually, the number varies anywhere from 50-150, but who's really counting anyway?).  May I ask how many of these nominees who didn't get an up or down vote had majority support for confirmation?  Also, how many of these 65 judicial nominees failed in committee?  

I don't believe anyone is saying that nominees who fail in committee deserve a vote - only those who do.

Lastly, any place I can go and look-up who these 65 would-be jurists were - so I can see how many of them eventually did receive votes - only a little later than Bubba wanted - or how many of them failed in committee and were therefore undeserving of said vote?

Thanks in advance.

I don't believe anyone is saying that nominees who fail in committee deserve a vote - only those who do.

That should of course read:

I don't believe anyone is saying that nominees who fail in committee deserve a vote - only those who pass.

Sloppy.  Darn.

Republican senators are unable to assert their majority status.  Conservative principles can not be advanced by this congress because Republican senators are too afraid.  There will be no judicial confirmations without Frist gaining the Democrat's approval.

The original point of the filibuster was to extend debate to convince others to change their votes.  100 hours is more than enough to do so.  As we say with Bolton, Senators can change their mind on nominees due to floor debate.  If Dems cannot win over 51 votes against a nominee, the nominee deserves to be approved.

We should allow all nominees an up or down vote, unless they are squashed in committee.

We should also bring back the blue slip allowing individual Senators to block the committee vote.  For some reason,  Republicans decided that this rule was no longer useful after Clinton left office.  

Here's a great idea for a truce: Republicans bring back the blue slip, Democrats allow an up or down vote on all nominees.

Frist responds by giving the Dems nothing of what they want (no shelving of the filibuster, no tabling of any of the nominees Dems consider unacceptable).

So, it is your opinion that a minority of Senators should have the power to, whenever they want, deny the confirmation of executive and judicial nominees who enjoy majority support (and have, in some cases, for almost 3-years over 2-congresses)?

I must have missed that part in my reading of Articles I and II.  Also, if that's the case, any guess as to why in 214-years it has never before happened?

Frist's offer codifies the Republican position and answers some of the Democrats demands:

• want more time?  100-hours should be plenty.
  
• want fairness?  No more blue-slips, everyone's nominees get reported out of committee (though some will be rejected - they will still be reported)
  
• want to keep the legislative filibuster?  Done and done.

What you may not be getting is that this has nothing to do with Reid and the Democrats and everything to do with Hagel, Collins and Warner.  They probably went a long way toward putting this compromise together (though I'm basing that on nothing more than pure spectulation).  This is cover for them to vote to change the rules because it makes the democrats look unreasonable - and if I had to guess, it looks like Owens will be the test case (she was mentioned in Frist's speach), not Brown.

I'm sure there's an argument for "blue slips", but I wonder what it is?

If it's a no-no for 41-Senators to stop a nominee who enjoys the support of the remaining 59, why is it OK for a single Senator to make that decision for the remaining 99?

I'm not trying to be trollish here - I really want to understand this.

Also, am I correct in assuming that you could only "blue slip" an appointment from your state?  If that's the case, and because these are federal appointments, why should the residence of the nominee matter in the least?  (If not, then this second question is of course nonsensical and I withdraw it).

Cheers.

I think Frist's proposal is excellent and politically well-crafted. It addresses both current Democratic obstruction as well as past Republican tactics of bottling up nominees in committee without even giving them a hearing. It allows plenty of time for debate, so the Dems can't get away with claiming this is all about the time-honored Senate tradition of full debate. My opinion of him has just gone up. Well done!

I agree with this

What you may not be getting is that this has nothing to do with Reid and the Democrats and everything to do with Hagel, Collins and Warner.  They probably went a long way toward putting this compromise together (though I'm basing that on nothing more than pure spectulation).  This is cover for them to vote to change the rules because it makes the democrats look unreasonable

I think those 3 were dragging their feet and wanted a compromise.  Frist probably agreed to offer this one and if Dems refuse it then at least 2 of the 3 are likely to go along with restoring the up-or-down vote for nominees.

I would add that Senator Nelson (D-NE) had also been looking for a compromise.  Since he just got a challenger for 2006, this vote must be uncomfortable for him.  If he voted the Dem party line; he loses his "independent Nebraskan" credibility since he ostensibly supports many of these nominees.  If he votes against the Dem party line he may help his re-election prospects but it could put Frist at 50 votes.  

Isn't this what the Dems have been complaining about... that the Republicans are undermining the Republic by not allowing full debate?  (At least that's what Gore calmly laid before the MoveOn folks yesterday.)  

The Republicans point out that filibustering of appellate judicial nominees has never been the practice of either party. (That is, like it or not, the simple, historical fact.)  Thus they argue (convincingly, I believe) that the judicial filibuster is a totally illegitimate tool from the get go.   How then can they accept as "good faith" an offer to withold using that tool in two instances?

Let's have some simple honesty on this.  It's not debate the Dems want -- they simply want NOT to vote, which amounts to a special sort of "no" vote, the sort in which a minority of "no's" wins!

as stated by the Dems.  My comment deals with the viability of Frist's offer being seen as a compromise, not with the underlying arguments for and against the judicial filibuster.  I fully understand that this is a political move aimed at providing cover for Hagel, Collins, Warner, and the others.  But the only way that will happen is if this can be spun as "hey, we're meeting them in the middle and they won't go there."  As I pointed out, Reid gave in a tiny bit, obviously not enough for Frist to accept.  But this will not work as a political move if it can't be seen as a legitimate compromise.  To be that, they need to give the Dems some of their stated goals (as Reid did with offering to allow some judges to get through in this round, though of course we all know that is a weak attempt at compromise and one Frist would reject out-of-hand).  They haven't -- you give three points representing Dem demands.  But Dems want to retain their power as a minority, not to have more debate.  They see the present system as fair and aren't asking for "more fairness" in the process.    And the legislative filibuster isn't even on the table, as far as I know, so how is that giving them something they want?

Again, my point is not whether or not the judicial filibuster is right or wrong, only that Frist's counteroffer doesn't resemble a compromise.

Reid's proposal wasn't a compromise either.  The Republicans have one demand: Judges deserve an up-or-down vote.  It didn't give that to Republicans so it isn't really a compromise either.

Why can't Frist just do this...What is the need for a "propposal"...

Er, Frist can't make Democrats and squish Republicans disappear.

The Dems don't want more debate, they want to scuttle nominees that don't have a super-majority.  You are 100% right.  But they will not give up that power without some assurances in return.  And the fact that the votes haven't been brought to the floor yet means Frist's beef is with the moderate repubs, not the dems.  And this provides him little political cover to convince them to move towards his posiiton on the issue if it is not perceived as a compromise.  My point is that it is hard to see this as a compromise since it requires Dems to relinquish power (whether you think it is fair that they have that power or not) without answering their concerns about judges they deem unacceptable.  Offering more debate just means more bitterness prior to a vote, everyone knows the end result would be the same.  So Frist is asking them to give up power in exchange for CSPAN time.  IMHO, it is unlikely to be perceived as a good faith compromise.

should continue to hold veto-power over the majority?  The minority should be able to determine what nominees are acceptable for a vote and not the majority?

That is not compromise - that is surrender.

My principal point is that I believe Frist's offer needs to be viewed as a compromise only by Hagel, Warner, Collins and perhaps Nelson (NE) and Specter (hat-tip to Adam), most of whom I believe had a hand in crafting this very document.  It's total inside baseball to anyone else and it's hard to see how giving a minority of Senators 100-hours with which to make their case against a nominee is in any way unreasonable to allowing the continued tyranny of the minority.

We may actually agree on the underlying issue and only quarreling on the politics.  Don't know - doesn't matter.

For what it's worth, my opinion is that the time for actual compromise came and went on November 3, 2004.  It's time for Frist to recognize that his party won the last election and time for Reid to realize that his party lost.

a universal up-or-down vote for all nominees that make it out of committee.  But there is also demands for these specific judges because they have been treated unfairly.  So it is a compromise to allow votes for a few nominees since we know they will be confirmed, and thus vindicated.  Reid's compromise was so lopsided, it was obvious Frist had to turn it down.  But Frist's compromise guarantees all judges currently stalled will be confirmed, as will all future judges the majority party is united in confirming.  It'll just take longer.  That does not address any of the Dem complaints.

If we object to the hitherto unknown supermajority requirement for the confirmation of nominated justices, so also should we object to the blue slip, an explicit total majority requirement.

My principal point is that I believe Frist's offer needs to be viewed as a compromise only by Hagel, Warner, Collins and perhaps Nelson (NE) and Specter (hat-tip to Adam), most of whom I believe had a hand in crafting this very document.  It's total inside baseball to anyone else and it's hard to see how giving a minority of Senators 100-hours with which to make their case against a nominee is in any way unreasonable to allowing the continued tyranny of the minority.

Hagel and Co. know this is no true attempt at compromise, just like they know Reid's attempt was not a good faith attempt at compromise.  But it is whether they see political cover in the compromise that is key.  That is, later down the line can they defend a "yes" vote on the nuclear/constitutional option by saying, well, we tried to compromise but they wouldn't play ball?  I think the answer is no because Reid offered terms under which two judges get confirmed, while Frist is offering a set of terms which guarantees all the judges will get confirmed plus all future judges.  That is the bottom line (right or wrong) and it may be a hole in the cover they seek.

but remember that it probably only has to be acceptable for two of them.

Two (Hagel, Warner) are in more-or-less reliably Republican seats, one (Nelson) is a rather nervous-looking Dem in a solidly republican leaning seat, and Specter had a great deal of defference thrown his way in the Frist proposal and will never face the voters again in any case.

Thus, the odds of getting 2 of those 4, even without Collins (who is the marginally more reliable of the two squishes from ME), are pretty good.  Time will tell.

Cheers.

If your speculation is right and they had a hand in crafting Frist's proposal, there may already be a deal in which they agreed that if the Dems reject Frist's offer they will give Frist their vote...

It's important to remember that three of them (Hagel, Warner, Collins) are on record as being opposed to the filibuster - so only the flimsiest of covers may be necessary for them.  The Frist (Hagel?  Collins?  Warner?  Specter?) proposal easily reaches that level.

Finally, Nelson (NE) is on record as supporting at least 5 (and I've heard as many as 9) of the filibustered nominees.  How much cover does he really need in a red-leaning seat?  I'm guessing not much.

I thought Senators could only blue slip nominees for courts in their state, not nominees from their state.

It was not neccesary for the Senate under Clinton to filibuster a judicial nomineee in order for Republicans to squash the nominee in committee.  

In the early 90's, Sen. Hatch hardened the "blue slip" rule, meaning that a committee vote could not take place until the blue slip had been returned by the nominee's home Senators.  This, rather than the filibuster, was the tool used by Republicans in the 90's to prevent an up or down vote on over 60 of Clinton's nominees.  Clinton compromised, and met with Republican leaders to come up with nominees that were acceptable to both parties.  

In 2001, Republicans changed the rule back, since obviously it did not want to give Dems the same power under Bush that they had enjoyed under Clinton.

That's my guess as to why Bush's are the first judicial nominees to be filibustered (except of course for Abe Fortas, a supreme court nominee filibustered by Republicans in 1968).

That changes the dynamic somewhat.  Somewhat fairer (marginally) - downside is that it enshrines mockeries like the 9th Circus as leftist monoliths forever (and perhaps a similar "Circus" court on the right - though not as likely).

It also fails to answer why (if our position is that 50+1 is enough) a single Senator should be able to torpedo a nominee.

Good catch - and thanks.

The idea being that a Senator from California might not know anything about a Senator from Georgia, but the Senator from Georgia should and if he knew the nominee was no good he could hold his blue slip to reject him.  Nowadays information is much more easily obtained and a little research will put everyone on equal footing.

I think you're right about blue slips only being presented to Senators from the home state of the nominee.  These Senators have 3 options:  they can either (a) give a postive blue slip, (b) give a negative blue slip (basically a strong recommendation against), or (c) stall and fail to turn in their blue slip

In the early 20th century, a negative blue slip was often a killer for judicial nominees-- although they could still be presented before the Senate, most of the time a less controversial nominee was put forward.

In '95, Hatch changed the Senate rules-- prior to '95 a blue slip was not necessarily needed to move forward with a comittee vote (although the rules were vague on this issue since the situation rarely came up).  From '95-'01, the new rules stated that a committee vote could not take place until both blue slips were turned in from the nominee's home state Senators, allowing a single Senator to metaphorically "kill" a nominee.

This was the primary tool used to prevent an up or down vote on 60+ of Clinton's judicial nominees.  In 2001, with Clinton leaving office, the rule was changed back.  Blue slips are still given out, but their return is no longer neccesary for a vote to move forward.

This is the basic chain of events that has embittered Senate Democrats, and led them to filibuster 10 of Bush's nominees.

Those three (Hagel, Collins, and Warner) are against the use of the filibuster.  They just don't want this to be used a precedent for the legislative filibuster and they don't want to continue the descent of the Senate into a hyperpartisanship like the House.

I think they had a hand in this compromise mainly because it a) does not allow the filibuster on nominees, b) explicitly allows it for legislative issues, and c) is pretty generous in other provisions (much more so than Frist would be on his own).

Thus, I suspect that they agreed to vote to end the filibuster if Reid refused to accept this deal.

My Nelson analysis is somewhat tangential but it is a possibility that we pick him up as well.  In that case, we could have as many as 53 votes (losing McCain, Chafee, and Snowe and gaining Nelson).  That gives us leeway for Collins, Warner, Hagel, Specter, and Nelson.  Only 2 are needed.  I think Warner and Hagel will be the easiest to win over followed by Specter and Nelson.  Collins will probably follow her gut wherever it takes her.

For about 3/4 of the 20th century, one party controlled both the Senate and the White House.  Yet, at no time during that period has a judicial nominee with majority support been prevented from coming to a vote.  Apples and grapefruits - try again.

This, rather than the filibuster, was the tool used by Republicans in the 90's to prevent an up or down vote on over 60 of Clinton's nominees.

Oh, and I'm sure all of Reagan's and Bush I's nominees sailed through Democrat controlled committees with total ease.  And again with the "60+ nominees" - could someone, anyone, give me some names of these would-be legal giants?

That's my guess as to why Bush's are the first judicial nominees to be filibustered (except of course for Abe Fortas, a supreme court nominee filibustered by Republicans in 1968).

There were as many southern democrats as Republicans fillibustering the Fortis nomination (24R, 19D).  To suggest otherwise is disingenuous even by blog standards.

But that still does not argue in favor of the practice, does it?

BTW, this is a practice that is no-longer allowed under the Frist proposal (I believe - someone correct me if I'm wrong).  Can't the Demos be big boys and girls and just say "By-gones"?

I know - kidding on the last one.

Although I am to the left of most here, I really couldn't care less whether the Senate allows for nominees to be filibuster or not.  I'm actually leaning towards requiring an up-or-down vote on all Bush's nominees.

My main problem is with changing the rules.  It's obvious that everyone's position here is not based on principle (for the most part), but rather on whether or not your guys are in power.  If we're not going to allow filibusters, or any other underhanded minority means for killing judicial nominees in committee, then we should grab a chisel carve the rule in stone.  We shouldn't let Republicans or Democrats change it once someone they don't like is in the White House.  

It's obvious that everyone's position here is not based on principle, but rather on whether or not your guys are in power.

Courts

Some history of its use

http://www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/judges/ch2.html

Skip the first section (most of you won't like it)and go down to blue slips and holds.

As I sloppily said below (REPEAT: preview is good!), I really don't have a philisophical objection to ending the filibuster of nominees.  I just want everyone to agree on a set of rules and make them permanent.  The constant hypocrisy of both sides as  they move in and out of power is what really grabs my goat here.

No one seems to have any concrete information on vote counts....until that happens, we are just wasting time....

I heard Frist this morning in a radio interview, he said two things ... very clearly

Direct question do you have the votes to change the rule? Answer:YES

Next question, how are you going to proceed? Answer: Exhaust all possibilities of avaoiding a rule change.

Discussion of timeframe -- he implied days not weeks. Frist said nothing about this proposal -- My guess is this is the last stop. If this works it would be fine with me.

214-years of practice was that a plurality of voting senators was enough to confirm a judge (or any executive nominee) - I'm fine with that regardless of who is in power.

End blue slips and other related practices that allow a single senator to nuke a nominee - they were wrong when the Demos did it to Reagan and Bush I, they were wrong when Hatch did it to Clinton.  Stop it - glad it's in Frist's proposal.

Unfortunately, hypocrisy in politics is one of the few truly bipartisan traits of all pols.  Given that, I hope you have lots of "goats" to "grab" </cheek&gt.

Cheers.

For most of the 20th century, negative blue slips were occasionally given out-- even when the Senator and nominee were from the same party.

This negative blue slip was not binding, although in most cases it led to a rejection of the nominee in committee (regardless of party). It was simply not thought of to object to a President's nominees for purely partisan reasons.

That did not change with Bush 43, it changed with Clinton.  Reagan's nominees did in fact "breeze by" for the most part.  So did Bush 41's.  As I said, it simply never occured to most Senators to object to a nominee on partisan lines.

In '95, as I said above, Hatch changed the rules requiring a blue slip for a committee vote.

As far as Abe Fortas, I was just trying to ease your shock over this being the first time any judicial nominee has ever been filibustered.  I fully concede that there may have been Yellow Dog Democrats on board.  A majority of those filibustering in '68 were Republicans, but I didn't mean to suggest that it was done strictly along party lines.

Frist is lying if he did he would do it already.  What I find funny is that this president went to war to oust a dictator.  Now his party is acting like one and trying to destroy minority rights in the senate.

but that's what makes it so fun sometimes.

That did not change with Bush 43, it changed with Clinton.  Reagan's nominees did in fact "breeze by" for the most part.  So did Bush 41's.  As I said, it simply never occured to most Senators to object to a nominee on partisan lines.

Robert Bork.

Granted, Bork was nominated to the SCOTUS.  However, he is clearly the first judicial nominee ever denied confirmation for purely (and nakedly obvious) ideological reasons.

Fortas: it is not that their may have been as many yellow-dogs on board - the fact is that there were as many on board.  Also, I've never said that this is "the first time any judicial nominee has ever been filibustered" - what I maintain is that the denial of votes to majority-supported nominees over a period of months (years!) is unprecidented.

However, as it was not your intent to suggest that the Fortas filibuster was along party-lines, I move to withdraw my previous snarky comment.

Cross the proverbial line?

Take a breath, Darth.  Minority rights are not being destroyed.  What is being abolished is the right of a minority to dictate to the majority over a period of years on Constitutionally-mandated executive nominees.

Your side will be back some day - you should welcome this.

Of course is a power grab to quash any dissent in the senate.  What people like you do not understand is  that you do not have the people on your side.  Frist knows this and he should offer a real comprimise not this BS offer he made today.

Careful, careful.

BusHitler stuff gets tolerated elsewhere, but it's about as welcome here as a bison in a tennis court.

Why would Reid offer a compromise if he could comfortably hold his current position?

Are we to understand that Harry Reid has been listening to the ghost of Henry Clay?

How welcome I would find bison at the average match.

actually happened on the evening of 2 November 2004 - when the GOP won a net of 4 seats in the Senate and sent Senator No from SD into the dreaded private sector.

That's what elections do - they decide who gets to set policy.  What is happening is that the winners of the last election have finally decided to stop taking orders from the losers of the last election.

Spin it anyway you like - the question of whether or not "we" have anyone on "our" side was decided last November and won't be of concern again until Nov 2006.

Oh, and as for "quash(ing) any dissent in the senate" - I somehow doubt that opposition Senators will be forbidden from dissenting - only now it will be a little harder to obstruct judicial nominees.  Chill.

I hear Sampras is playing them next year.

Last time I checked in it was Democrats who are lying -- about practically everything.

I doubt Frist would go on national live radio and lie, about anything. He was on a show with about 300 stations, not some backwater Air America nobody is listening to show.

I think his proposal is the last gasp before he pulls the trigger. It's quite clever if you think about it.

The lunatic behavior of the Senate Democrats of the last few days suggest they know the game is over.

and you're gone.

You would think the keepers of the voter disenfranchisement drivel with their count every vote chorus would be chomping at the bit to make sure all candidates for judicial office get a fair shake.

It looks like voter disenfranchisement and don't allow any votes to be counted is their new mantra.

Sadly the Dems bring out this old tired song only when they lose elections. hmmm, anyone else see a pattern of behavior here from the 'algore' crowd?

in principle to "carving in stone" the prohibition on filibusters of judicial nominees.

While I'm quiet about this, I'm opposed to the rule change (both in this instance and the long-term), for a handful of reasons.  Basically, I believe the following things:

-A strong leader will do the necessary things - both arm-twisting and paybacks - to get a majority-favored nominee through.  Frist is not able to do this, but that doesn't mean the system has failed, just that he is unwilling to do what it takes push these nominees through and get 60 votes. Try that first.

-The filibuster is a necessary tool of governance that prevents the Senate from becoming the House.  When the balance of power inevitably turns, I want to be able to demand that Republicans filibuster a nomination of Hillary Clinton to the court - or that conservatives join with Democrats to kill a RINO nominee.  Some think that Republicans are too wussy to ever do that, but I am more optimistic.

-The filibuster historically is useful to liberals and conservatives, but rarely to moderates. I'm sympathetic to the notion that it's tactically better to have the Democrats dig a hole for themselves by allowing the extreme pro-abortion left dictate their policies.

This is, in the end, all about the Supreme Court.  I think that if that was the issue at hand, I might change my mind if Democrats were filibustering a qualified nominee for purely ideological reasons.  As that has not yet happened, I am reluctant to support a rule change.

I have my liberal talking points right here... pay attention now.

WALMART is PURE evil.

You, you are like a doubleshot Capuchino of evil:)

That's why I think it would really work as a fair solution.  The Dem's would have to suck it up and forget about Clinton's problems in the 90's-- but I think it's only fair to let bygones be bygones as a part of any compromise.

Really, though, I'd rather the President (be it D or R) didn't ever get 100% of his nominations through, even when his party controls the Senate.  I like Clinton, but I don't think he should have had all his nominees put through over strong objections from Senate Republicans.  

Presidents should be forced to compromise, especially on appointments that will be in place long after the appointer leaves office, and even more so on those that are supposed to be even-handed interpreters of the law. The problem is that minority power can always be abused, and I can't think of any real set of guidelines that would keep a minority veto in check.  Should the President have to compromise on 10 judges?  Maybe only 5?  As high as 60?

It's unfortunate to have to go in the absolute other direction, but in the absense of non-partisan, good faith debate it looks like the only fair choice.  And in the long run, after all, what's good for the goose...

then the majority party can move forward.

whacked.

So have you guys eaten in any of Ted's Montana Grill?

Frist is just worried that about the political "fallout" from the "nuclear" option. He wants to play negotiator for as long as possible and not come out of this the bad guy. Kind of like how Bush spent all those months at the United Nations trying to get a second resolution. Futile, but worth a shot.

I don't understand this proposal.  How can he give the democrats 100 hours of debate when the constitution already guarantees unlimited debate?

Please link to where the Constitution provides for unlimited debate in the Senate.

Hollings? I don't think he's making any proposals - to Democrats or otherwise. Just a hunch.

MachoNachos

No kidding.

Juicy - organic - a tad pricey - but quite yummy.

Not bad for a Bostonian, eh?

Chow.

I mean, a-deep-draft-of-Iced-Tea-with-shaved-ice-out-the-nose good.

Congrats on easily claiming the prize for laugh of the day!

Cheers.

Standing Rule XXII provides for unlimited debate in the United States senate so Bill Frist's proposal doesn't make sense.

Never will be.

Swing-and-a-miss.

I would think.  I've only had it out West.  You're right it ain't cheap.  By the way I have a Bison skull I need to get rid of, if you're interested.  Probably oughta just put it on E-bay.  Ted opened one of his Montana Grills nearby, I meant to take it over before they finished decorating and see if I could trade it for a free dinner.

on the skull!  eBay is probably a good bet.  Happy selling.

The chili is homemade - I make much better than I can get just about anywhere else, which is also probably not bad for a northeastern pasean, eh?

Cheers.

Please link to where in the Constitution unlimited debate is guaranteed.

I'd say it's pretty good for a pasean in Boston yes.  Enjoy.

Although I do have a few objections...

Republicans do not now, nor will at any time in the foreseeable future in the real world, have the ruthlessness necessary to twist arms, threaten political careers and filibuster Hillary and/or RINOs in order to achieve their objectives.  I believe that there are profound reasons, both philsophical and cynically political, for this, but all the same, it will never happen.  For my part, I suspect that much of the delay in the implementation of whatever as hoc strategy Frist has is due to the recalcitrance of the RINO caucus; their arms should have been twisted and their legislative backs broken long ago - if we possessed real leadership in the Senate.

I'd rather that the death march of the left through the judiciary, with all that it portends for the constriction of the space allotted to the people for self-governance, be halted. It may be thought electorally advantageous for the left to be identified with the extremities of the pro-abortion movement, but the advantage is only electoral; it has not changed, nor will change without political ruthlessness of one sort or another, the real balance of power in the nation concerning the culture and the status of the courts.  The electoral advantage, in terms of what truly matters, the power to enable the preservation of the culture or facilitate its transformation, is merely the shadow play on the wall of Plato's cave.

Give the Dems time; the odds are better than even that they will filibuster a nominee on purely ideological, even religious, grounds.  

ideology has banished good faith from the halls of the Senate.  In this case, the intransigence of the Democrats and their elevation of a particularly non-cogent SCOTUS ruling - we all know which one(s) - to the status of sacred totem, concerning which, all questioning is taboo.

Who's idealogy?

The Democratic filibuster isn't about blocking any and all pro-lifers from the bench.  After all, over 200 of Bush's judicial nominees have gone through, and I doubt all of them are pro-choice.

Using an example from the other side: I think an average pro affirmative action nominee from a Democratic President would probably not be the Republicans' number one choice-- but I assume they would likely let him/her go through anyway except in the most extreme cases.  An active Black Panther, for example.  In the same way, Democrats are grudingly accepting almost all pro-life appointees, except in the most extreme cases.  And that doesn't even account for all the nominees-- one was being filibustered because he lacked even a proper law degree (his only qualification was the proper ideology apparently), a few others for "repeal the entire New Deal and bring back 1929" extremism.

If Democrats were filibustering every Bush nominee who was pro-life, there's probably little else they would have time for.

every last pro-life nominee?  They are only interested in filibustering those nominated to the appeals court bench, and, presumably, the SCOTUS.

I rather seriously doubt that any of the nominees truly maintains a commitment to the repeal of the New Deal; that smells of the sort of caricature disseminated by left-aisle interest groups.  Besides, one judge is incapable of overturning so massive an assemblage of programs as the New Deal, and the reasoning supportive of the New Deal, like it or not, is much more securely grounded in the Constitution than Roe and its spawn.

and have no reason to.  If they agree to Frist's proposal, all of the judges they oppose get confirmed.  If they object to Frist's proposal and the republicans go nuclear, all of the judges they oppose get confirmed.  Under option 1, they have compromised, lost the ability to attack the republicans use of the nuclear option and all of the judges they oppose are on the bench.  Under option 2, they have compromised, retained the ability to attack the republicans on the "abuse of power" theme and all of the judges they oppose are on the bench.  

Option 2 makes much better politics and will IMHO win the day.  Frist is the one that needs compromise more than Reid or the dems do.  

I've looked around a little bit, and it appears that the blue slip is attached to the home state Senators of the nominee.  I suppose more often than not, judges for the Western District of Michigan are not brought in from Georgia, so the home state provisions still protects the home court.

Frist is the one that needs compromise more than Reid or the dems do.

I'm sure if I look around there is a very real possibility you've already answered this, but here's an opportunity to summarize the point with regard to the above statement:

Why?

Article I, Section 5  The constitution is a document that created the senate and gave the senate the right to make rules.  Standing rules are created by the senate for the senate.

By that logic, every law passed by Congress and signed, ignored, or vetoed but overruled by the President is on its face constitutional.

allow rule changes by a majority vote this means you don't have any objection right?

The reason I think Frist needs compromise more than the democrats is because Frist needs to look like a leader.  He is the head of the Senate and is aiming to be elected head of the country in '08.  If he is able to strike a compromise with the dems that gets the judges through without the resulting "shut down" of the senate that the dems are threatening, he looks like a leader and can say that he brought both sides together for the good of the country, yada, yada, yada.  If he can't compromise he has to choose between one of two unpalatable options: (1) go nuclear and have the dems "shut down" senate business or (2) not go nuclear and have the far right calling for his head on a platter.  Under option 1, he looks like an ineffectual leader to all but the far right (who aren't going to win him the general election) and bolsters the dems' "abuse of power" theme.  Under option 2, he looks like an ineffectual leader to the far right (who he has to have to win the '08 nomination).

The question then is why do I think that he has more to lose than the dems.  Well, I don't really think the dems have all that much to lose on this issue.  The worst case scenario is that Frist goes nuclear.  Then, all the judges get confirmed and there is no judicial filibuster anymore.  Not really all that big of deal...the 9th gets a little more conservative...the 6th gets more conservative...the 4th, 11th and 5th circuits don't really change at all...and the DC circuit gets a little more conservative...and the republicans will not have the filibuster when the dems are back in power sometime in the future.  Plus, the dems gets to hammer the republicans with the "abuse of power"/"they change rules they don't like" theme in the mid-terms.

I hear a lot of people comparing the dems' threat of a senate shutdown to the republicans government shutdown in the '90s, but I think this comparison is misplaced and that the dems strategy will not carry the political weight that the '90s shutdown did.  In the '90s, the government shut down in a way that provided tangible soundbytes and videoclips (parks closed, museums closed, etc.).  That was something people could grasp...it had a level of reality to it that the dems current plan does not.  The dems are not going to "shut down" the senate in the way the republican "shut down" the government.  They are just going to use procedure to slow everything down.  If someone turns on c-span, they will see the senators voting to recess for lunch or someone reading a thousand-page bill.  It can be played for political gain by the reps, but it will not be a watershed moment in american politics.  

Maybe a longer answer than you had wanted.

and that's in spite of the fact that I don't agree with about half - but this is an excellent response and I thank you for it.

No problem with the length, either.

What I may not have previously stated before is that I think we're in this place primarily for two reasons:

1. Frist is a weak and ineffectual leader
   
   
2. Reid and the Demos cannot accept that they are 1-for-6 in Congressional elections since 1994 and that they are no longer the majority party

So to my mind, Frist looks weak and ineffectual regardless, but the Demos need to be made to understand that they are no longer calling the shots.  Come January 2007, this may all be different (though the numbers favor an expansion of the status-quo) - but the Demos have had a free-ride dictating to the majority for 3-years and this is their Waterloo.

Thanks again for a great response.

Cheers.

that Frist is a weak and ineffectual leader, but I think he could rehabilitate his image (at least in the minds of the general public) if he finds a way out of this mess that gets the judges through without the nuclear option.

Putting aside the democrats successes in the last 6 elections, what would you have them do differently than they are doing now?  Lie down and do nothing while the republicans do whatever they want?  That's not a formula for successful government and that is not what the republicans did when the dems were solidly in power.  Government works best when it is tempered by counter-balancing forces (that's the brilliance behind the whole concept of separation of powers).  The dems lose on most things these days, but I am far more frightened by an unencumbered majority than I am by a minority party thwarting an otherwise unencumbered majority.

I still favor a local politician's platform when he ran for congress: congress should have a two-tiered payscale: $50,000 if you show up to Washington and do your job or $500,000 if you just stay home.

the minority party to do, roll over and play dead?  Say, oh wait, you guys are calling the shots, we'll shut up and stay in line?  I don't recall the minority Gingrichians being quiet little sheep.  I think the Democrats are quite painfully aware of their status, and their losses.  Given the opportunity, they will try to get their way as often as possible because, quite frankly, that's their job.  They'll take what leverage they can get.  And I think you would expect the same thing of the Republican party in the minority, or be grossly disappointed.

While we agree that Frist is weak and ineffectual, I happen to believe that his image is beyond rehabilitation and that (frankly) he doesn't have it in him.  As such it's not his image that's the problem, it's him.

A Mitchell (sp?)or even a Dole would have had this worked out to his party's benefit by now - that this has dragged-on for nearly 3-years is on Frist and I don't see him doing anything to stop that.

No, I do not believe that the Democrats should simply "(l)ie down and do nothing while the republicans do whatever they want" - and no, that is not what the Republicans did.  What the republicans did was propose alternatives to programs that the majority Democrats proposed but that they didn't like (such as the Chaffee alternative to Hillary-Care).  That is sorely and clearly lacking from the current obstructionist minority.  As such, until the Democrats start to act like an opposition party, as opposed to simply obstructing the majority, then the republicans have no obligation to treat them as minority partners in governing.

While people can argue that the tactics of the Majority GOP under Clinton may have crossed the line, what cannot be argued is that the behavior of the GOP minority during 1993-94 (the last time the negative of the current circumstance was in play) is anything comparable to the current situation.  Don't believe me?  I start by offering the following: Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and leave it at that.

I have no idea what your last statement has to do with the subject at hand - but I admit to being intrigued by it.

Cheers.

Asked and answered.

the one where just 75% of Bush's nominees have gone through (30 of 40 with 15 more pending-- and baby-killers, all).

I agree somewhat with you on Roe, in that it probably is bad law.  I would like to see women's choice instead protected by Congress-- although I'm afraid in these times of religious pandering we're further away from that goal than ever.  

I still maintain my reservations that Bush's more extreme nominees look nostalgically towards our pre-New Deal history.  Appeals Court nominee Justice Janice Brown is probably the most extreme example from the filibustered ten.  She called Social Security part of a "socialist revolution".  She said HUD programs were illegal and a theft of private property.  

She also wrote an opinion that the 1st Amendment permits corporations to make false and misleading claims without any legal liability.  What a free-market paradise that would be. Repealing the New Deal isn't quite strong enough-- we've got to erase the legacy of both Roosevelts if we really want to wash away the stink of liberalism from the country.

Corporations were never intended to be considered persons under the consitution (bill of rights specifically).  Corporations gained 'corporate personhood' in 1886, Santa Clara County vs Southern pacific Railroad.  

I assume there are probably more than a few 'strict constitutionalists' here on redstate, and a strict consitutionalist should most definately not be in favor of corporat personhood.

I suppose it would be too much to ask, though, for Republican candidates to make these points their rallying cries for '06.

who ran on the dissolution of HUD. Social Security is water on the bridge, since the money has already been collected, but is there any real disagreement that the program smells more than a little socialistic?

As for corporate personhood, that's a legally debatable issue. But then, I'm also for the privatization of the FDA (if you haven't yet read Stossel's book, his argument in favor of this is brilliant), so I'm on board with the basic concept.

Now, is the average voter going to go for this? Eh, probably not. But that's why we have RedState.org, so that one day, they will. :-)

MachoNachos

Whatever that is, I might agree.

I'm definitely not going to buy the book please share the main points with me if it won't violate someones copyrigts.

I must be the average voter.

If you change the rule to stop the current minority, won't that hurt you when you are no longer the majority?  As they say, what comes around, goes around.

as you already mentioned you are a theocrat.  More redstate in general.  

However, since you are having problems:

A strict constitutionalist:

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/constitutionalist

e.g. president Bush, 2nd 2004 Presidential debate:

MICHAELSON: Mr. President, if there were a vacancy in the Supreme Court and you had the opportunity to fill that position today, who would you choose and why?

BUSH: I'm not telling.

(LAUGHTER)

I really don't have -- haven't picked anybody yet. Plus, I want them all voting for me.

(LAUGHTER)

I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States.

Let me give you a couple of examples, I guess, of the kind of person I wouldn't pick.

I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words "under God" in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.

That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.

And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We've got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law; judges interpret the Constitution.

And I suspect one of us will have a pick at the end of next year -- the next four years. And that's the kind of judge I'm going to put on there. No litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution.

Thank you.

Hope this helps :).  You might want to work on your understanding of statistics and chaos as well.

-Yertle

I'm definitely not going to buy the book

Oh, but you should. It's both entertaining and challenging, in a political way.

Stossel's basic argument for privatizing the FDA runs something like this. They have a company called UL that tests electronic products. For a modest fee, they will test your device and make sure that it is basically safe to operate from an electronic standpoint in most any environment in the United States. No one mandates that any company do this, but I'd be willing to bet a hefty sum that if you checked the back of your monitor, computer, television, surge protector and radios that they all have "UL listed" stickers on the back (or stamped on the back of the original packaging it came in). And so, while UL does not assume legal responsibility for anything that happens as a result of the usage of the product, you the consumer get the added benefit of the seal of approval from a reputable company that plugging this particular appliance in to a properly working outlet will not set your kitchen on fire.

Stossel's question is: Why not take this same approach with drugs? Instead of requiring that companies submit their products for FDA approval, requiring several years in many cases, why not instead privatize the whole thing, and charge companies a fee (say, $500,000) for the FDA to test their drug and ultimately put their stamp of approval on drugs that pass for the peace of mind of the consumer. This program would produce the following benefits:

1. It would eliminate a federal bureacracy that costs American taxpayers between $1.5 and 2 billion dollars a year, and replace it with a private company that actually contributes to the American economy.
   
2. By creating a profit motive, you incentivize the faster testing of drugs. The quality control aspect need not necessarily suffer, since free market forces tend to do a lot better in that regard than they are generally given credit for. People buy Consumer Reports and pay attention to J. D. Power for a reason, and it has nothing to do with the fact that the companies are "government approved." They do their homework and the American people know it and trust them. If they ever stop, another competitor will take their place. Ditto the FDA.
   
3. Terminal patients that would otherwise die while waiting for cutting edge/experimental medicine would have access to these drugs, if they so chose to accept the risk of taking them before FDA approval. I know some of you are recoiling in horror at the very notion, but how many terminal cancer patients do you that would care if the new chemo treatment that might save their life might possibly give them a bladder infection?

The sad thing is that this idea will probably never, ever get off the ground. It's considered too "radical." It's the same hysterical screeching that seems to occur every time de-regulation of any sort occurs. But I'd challenge anyone to name me one single instance (even one!) when deregulation of any enterprise whatsoever produced a worse situation than what existed when that enterprise was in government control.

The fact of the matter is, there are a large number of companies that already exist who have found ways around FDA regulation through the use of herbal supplements. The pity of this situation is that they have no avenue of voluntarily submitting their product for testing of medicinal uses, since they've been classified as foods.

I'm not doubting that the FDA once served a valuable purpose, even if you grant the assumption that avowed communist Upton Sinclair may have exaggerated the problem in The Jungle. But today's public in the information age is drastically more well-informed about products that are available on the private market than probably most members of the FDA are. It's time to privatize this dinosaur and do everyone involved a favor.

MachoNachos

To read more carefully in the future. I'm not holding out hope.

I apologize on constitutionalist: I'd never realized someone felt the need to add yet another word to the lexicon for an already well-named term of art.

It was the first thing I thought of when I started reading your reply.  Thanks for taking the time by the way.

I have to disagree though.  The comparison of UL to FDA is only half valid.  FDA not only evaluates safety but efficacy of drugs.  UL does not evaluate efficacy and it is simple to ascertain the efficacy of say my TV, my monitor, my printer,...;  whereas no matter how educated a consumer I am it is difficult to evaluate the safety and efficacy of my chemotherapy regimen, insulin, vaccines, pacemaker,....

1.  The bureauacracy would become private but the costs would still be born by the consumer even if they were somewhat reduced.
   
2.  I'd like to see FDA approve new drugs faster but there are already good loopholes for getting a new treatment breakthrough to market faster such as orphan drug status.  (I don't see the need for speeding up approval of yet another ED drug.)
   
3.  It's also about the efficacy.  I don't want that cancer patient to end up dead faster because of side effects of a drug that doesn't actually treat his cancer.  There are already clinical trials for these intrepid and desperate individuals.

Just one example of a failure of deregulation?  Obviously you want me to say energy, California, Enron.  So instead I'll say deregulation of banking in the 80's and the collapse of the S&Ls.

"there are a large number of companies that already exist who have found ways around FDA regulation through the use of herbal supplements. The pity of this situation is that they have no avenue of voluntarily submitting their product for testing of medicinal uses,"

Sure they can, they can set up a company that tests and evaluates herbal supplements.  The reason they don't do this is because by and large, their supplement doesn't work.  And look at deaths from using creatine, ephedra, steroids,... should people really have access to anything they want in the corner drugstore regardless of both its safety and its effectiveness?  Heroin is pretty darned effective.

Even if Sinclair exaggerated, the meat packing industry still needed government intervention as did many industries in the 1800's.  Corporations today are far more powerful than anything the framers could have imagined.  The consumer has no way to compete or influence their behavior except through government (I call this democracy).  I would submit that we have a pretty free market in the US today, pharmaceutical industry excluded.  If you want to avoid the necessity of government intervention in the future we need to keep some government oversight.  FDA, EPA, OSHA, argue about how much oversight they should have but getting rid of them totally would be a mistake.  

The first two to respond/accept will probably be viewed more favorably when they need a favor down the road than those who respond AFTER Frist gets the 51 votes he needs.