Redstate

I would vote for cloture, thereby preserving the filibuster and continue the fight. Having a definitive conclusion stops all future action.

The good news is most polls are now in favor of Republicans. Old Media vs the Internet, and old media loses again. So the longer the dems stall, the more likely they fall.

Fortunately dems aren't that smart and prefer driving off cliffs, errr bridges, whatever.

Should anything be read into the fact that Specter and Lugar were 2 of the 18 filing?

The path not taken is probably the best one for the Dems, are the smart enough to see that?

Not fighting to the death will tick off their base, but the base of the Dems are Moon Bats.  

I noticed that as well, and am heartened by it.

Some Republicans are worried that the other guys might somehow, some day gain 6 seats and control the Senate. All we need to do is change the rules back to the way they are now, after any election that brings sbout such a result, and before the new Senators are sworn in.

Doverspa:

Second sign, Specter; 8th, Dick Lugar.

For Arlen to sign directly after Frist struck me as John Hancock setting his name to the Declaration of Independence, in that he wanted his name to be front-and-center.

Then again, it could also be protocal, as Judic. Committee chairman.

over 6 months...

have carried the fight as far as they can without significant blowback.  If they keep pushing it, well, I hope they know what they're doing.

I'd rather see them win more elections than go this route myself.  One way to at least give us a shot in the future is to bite the bullet on this one.  It'll be a rough pill, but I don't see any other bright spots.

Note the text of John Kyl's speech today. The Filibuster has NEVER, as a matter of tradition, been used against Judicial nominees - and for good reason. The Constitutionally mandated advise-and-consent role of the Senate is entirely different and separate from its legislative responsibility.

The Republicans should not care to preserve a parlaimentary technicality contrary to the traditional and Constitutional role of the Senate.

through the appointment and confirmation of constitutionalist or contructionist judges is a liberals' worst nightmare.

I'm inclined to believe the democrats have no choice but to go down kicking and screaming, even though it is a lost cause for them.

I'm also going to be eternally optimistic and predict that this is the beginnig of the battle that ends with the confirmation of three of President Bush's nominations to the Supreme Court and with Justice Antonin Scalia being elevated to Chief Justice.

just because Specter signed the petition for cloture -- and presumably will vote to end debate on Judge Owen -- does not mean that he will ALSO vote within the intracacies of Senate parliamentary procedure to rule judicial filibusters in general off limits.

"Don't get cocky, kid"

...that Clarence Thomas might be a more likely choice for Chief Justice than Antonin Scalia, just by virtue of the fact that he is about nine years younger, and would presumably have a longer future on the court than Scalia.

Unless his wife really does feed him lots of butter and eggs...

...I do think that Scalia would make an outstanding Chief Justice.

Good comments by 10k and Steve; this is the only thing I'm afraid of at this point, that the Dems have the wisdom to NOT rush the machine guns at this time, that they allow cloture and thus completely defuse the nuke, saving the fight for some later date SC nomination.

Will that SC nominee not come until after 06?  And might the Senate change for the worse from now till then?  That's their only hope, but gawd it's not a terrible longshot, especially not with the way getting the votes needed right now has been like an exercise in herding cats.

On the bright side, I think the Dems are feeling that there's no real choice:  a woman, a black, a hispanic...  If these "minority" groups get the message that they're not victims who need the Democrat party to succeed, then the Dems are dead, and they know it.

Let's be truly candid about this issue.  A multi-decade long realignment of the Supreme Court is at stake.

I may be a little bold in my predictions, but I've experienced a little over half a century of political history.  The democrats have no standing on this issue if the Executive insists on exercising its constitutional right and is very public in doing so.  Remove the filters of the MSM.

I think Sen. Frist finally realizes the scope of the battle and the direction the Senate must take.  A noticable change in his sense of purpose and urgency over the last two days suggests to me that winning has become the only acceptable option and compromising away such an important constitutional responsibilty is equally unacceptable.

are what means the most to me.  That man is truly brilliant.  Justice Thomas may make more political sense in terms of longevity, but that assumes there won't be any more constitutionalists confirmed to the bench to replace Justice Scalia when he retires.

I sense a major shift in the political landscape that began two decades ago and now it has gathered its legs and with the aid of the new media is gaining momentum.

Politically completely wrong. This motion was filed for one reason, and one reason only... to set up the final vote on filibusters. There is no political upside to signing this document and voting in the end to sustain the power of the filibuster over judicial nominations. None, zip, zero, zilch.

scotte, so refreshing to hear this sentiment. Over the last 50 years the Repubican party has swallowed several rough pills. They never (Fortas was a bi-partisan "filibuster" that defined extrordinary curcumstances) filibustered a nominee. What is forgotten in all of this, is the balance that has brought this great nation of ours so far in so short a time. So thanks for bringing reason back to the table.

To: Senators

From: Seolach

My Lords and Ladies,

Will you PLEASE stop the grandizing, showboating circus and listen to the huddled masses you claim to represent?  Surely even you in your marbled and richly paneled offices have seen the distinct values trending in this country.  Why must you continue to feed your ever growing egos on the backs of highly qualified jurists selected by the elected President?  Debate is welcome as it brings to light understanding on both sides.  However, the current circus substituting for rational discourse only reveals your true stripes.  You care only for yourselves and the political party that you really represent.

We say enough.  Get on with the up or down vote that is required by the Constitution, which ALL of your have sworn to uphold.  

Do not fear the citizen backlash if your vote goes against what those who you claim to represent de-elect you in the next cycle.  You can retire on your Congressional Retirement Plan, keep your campaign contributions and go buy some island where you can be Supreme Ruler.  

Let us put aside for now the puerile arguments over whether judicial filibusters are unprecedented: They clearly, flatly, are not.

link

Filibustering is just one technique for blocking a nominee, and nominees have always blocked.  Sometimes that blocking used a filibuster, such as in Abe Fortas, or Richard Paez.

I get a lot of flak for that view, but I watch the talking heads interview Senators on the situation and some of them can't even say what judicial decisions they disagree with.  It seems they dislike the views expressed outside the courtroom.  They're towing the party line, and sometimes that's necessary, but there's too much publicity on this for them to get by unscathed.  Just because you don't like the politics of these judges doesn't mean you should firebomb the process.  Now I realize some of Clinton's nominees were held up in committee, but there's differences, nuanced, but different situations.  And like you said, if these judges are so bad, the American people will get the idea and vote accordingly.  It goes back to my belief that Congress is letting the judiciary make the hard decisions Congress should make themselves.

before the next election. Personally I think the Dem's should push the republican's all the way until finally they do indeed use the...(voice of moster truck rally spokesman) "NUCLEAR OPTION".

I could see nothing better than for the public to witness the republican party changing proceedures when they need to whatever suits them whenever they so decide to do so. I think that's absolutely wonderful, I couldn't possibly ask for anything better.

It all depends on how Ornstein defines "judicial filibuster."  

If one defines "judicial filibuster" as a repeated (meaning more than once) refusal of a minority of the US Senate sufficient to defeat cloture on a judicial nomination, then 108th Senate was the first Senate to conduct judicial filibusters.  

In the Fortas case, there was only one cloture vote and the debate lasted only four days.  Fortas asked President Johnson to withdraw his nomination.

There was at least one US Senator, however, who worried that the failed cloture vote would create a wave of judicial filibusters.  It didn't.  Even the highly contentious Clarence Thomas nomination fight can to a vote without a failed cloture vote.  This occured even though Thomas had only 52 votes in his favor, 8 fewer than needed to obtain cloture.  

Richard Paez got an up or down vote from the US Senate and was confirmed with less than 60 votes.  One could argue (as I do) that a judicial filibuster and an up or down vote are mutually exlusive.  

But regardless of whether one buys into Ornstein's premise or not (I do not have as sweeping of a definition of judicial filibuster as does Ornstein), the Senate must seriously consider why they should leave open the judicial filibuster loophole, even though the Constitution does not require a supermajority to confirm judicial nominees.  

Also, the legislative filibuster has already been seriously watered down over the decades.  For example, the Senate is limited to 50 hours of debate on budget matters because of the 1974 Budget Act.

By the way, the original US Senate (1789-1806) conducted business like the US House did: by majority vote.  

Being that I'm holed up here in DC for the week, I think I'm gonna try and go watch the showdown on Monday - anyone else in the area wanna throw marshmallows at Robert Byrd with me?

You are going to be bored!  I have occasionally watched the debate on C-Span2.  The arguments are repetitive.  

It's too bad you can't be there when Frist unleashes the "constitutional option."  I think he will do that on Tuesday or Wednesday.

Rule V of the Senate rules, passed by the 1959 Senate, is unconstitutional.  

Rule V says that it takes 2/3rds of the Senate to change Senate rules and that subsequent Senates must pass any rule changes by a 2/3rds vote.  

Here's the problem:

Prior to the 1959 Senate, Senate rules could, presumably, be passed by a simple majority.  Thus, Rule V passed in such an environment, an environment where the Senate could pass rules by a simple majority vote.  

That means that Rule V could be repealed by a simple majority vote.  No Senate can bind a future Senate except by Constitutional Amendment.  Since the Constitution empowers both houses to make its own rules, the Senate's rule setting power is granted by the Constitution, not by the 1959 Senate.  

Also, the original US Senate passed its rule by majority vote and could end debate with a simple majority vote.  It was called Rule VIII, the previous question rule.

to be there for. I heard late Monday or Tuesday.

"Mr. President, I again say that Senators can argue these precedents any way they

wish......  But at any time that 51 Members of the Senate are determined to change the rule and if they have a friendly Presiding Officer, and if the leadership of the Senate joins them--especially if it is the joint leadership--that rule will be changed, and Senators can be faced with majority cloture."  

             --- Senator Robert Byrd (1975)