News & Politics - Cheney Warns Democrats on Judicial Filibusters

In Fair Verona · 04-24-2005, 09:26 AM

Article from CNN.com

Quote:

Cheney warns Democrats on judicial filibusters
Senate Republicans moving toward final confrontation

Friday, April 22, 2005 Posted: 11:13 PM EDT (0313 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Vice President Dick Cheney warned Democrats Friday that he will cast the tie-breaking vote to ban filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees if the Senate deadlocks on the question.

Republicans are moving the Senate toward a final confrontation with Democrats over judicial nominations.

Internal GOP polling shows that most Americans don't support Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's plan to ban judicial filibusters -- a tactic in which opponents can prevent a vote on a nomination with just 41 votes in the 100-member Senate.

"There is no justification for allowing the blocking of nominees who are well qualified and broadly supported," Cheney told the Republican National Lawyers Association. "The tactics of the last few years, I believe, are inexcusable."

"Let me emphasize, the decision about how to proceed will be made by the Republican leadership in the Senate," Cheney said.

"But if the Senate majority decides to move forward and if the issue is presented to me in my elected office as president of the Senate and presiding officer, I will support bringing those nominations to the floor for an up or down vote."

Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, said the White House "has stepped over the line by interfering with the Senate to reduce checks and balances."

"The White House has always wanted to reduce the Senate's power and the fact that Vice President Cheney is encouraging this abuse of power should strengthen the Senate's resolve to resist," Schumer said.

Quote:

Owen, Rogers Brown advance

Now that Texas judge Priscilla Owen and California judge Janice Rogers Brown have been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, Frist has two nominees to push forward in a battle that conservatives hope their allies will rally around.

"We have now the vehicle. We have two qualified women. They have met every test," said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Texas Republican.

An internal Republican poll showed that Frist's plan to ban judicial filibusters might not be as popular as they had hoped.

Frist, strongly backed by conservatives in and out of the Senate, has threatened to employ a parliamentary tactic -- requiring only a majority vote -- to change Senate practices on judicial filibusters.

Under Senate rules, at least 60 votes are needed to cut off floor debate -- known as cloture. To keep a filibuster going, Democrats need just 41 senators to vote against a cloture motion.

Most of the time it's merely the Democratic threat of a filibuster that keeps GOP leaders from bringing a judicial nomination to the floor for a vote.

Democrats blocked 10 of Bush's 52 appeals court nominations through filibuster threats; 34 others were confirmed. In all, 204 of Bush's first-term judicial nominees were confirmed.

The president has renominated seven of the 10 appeals court prospects, and Democrats have again threatened to employ filibusters to block other nominees they consider to be too conservative.

Writings or judicial opinions on abortion, civil or labor rights and the environment are often a litmus test.

To change the rules, Frist needs a simple majority in the 100-member Senate. He can get that by mustering 50 votes and bringing in Cheney as the tiebreaker in his capacity as president of the Senate under the Constitution.

The Senate has 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and one independent. But a half-dozen GOP senators either have said they oppose or have refused to support changing the rules.

Quote:

'Nuclear option'

Frist's plan has been dubbed the "nuclear option" because Democrats have promised to retaliate by blocking the rest of Bush's legislative agenda -- excluding spending and highway bills and national security measures.

Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada commands a solid block of 45 votes against the proposal, and Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island have publicly stated their opposition as well.

A few GOP lawmakers are uncommitted, and Reid said this week that if Frist calls a vote, "it's going to be very close."

GOP polling shows 37 percent support for the GOP plan to deny Democrats the ability to filibuster judicial nominees, while 51 percent oppose, officials said Thursday, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Several officials who attended the polling briefing said the survey also contained encouraging news for Republicans.

The poll found more than 80 percent of those surveyed believed all judicial nominees deserve a yes-or-no vote.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, noting the survey data has not been made public.

Republicans say negative polling numbers wouldn't deter them.

"Polling on this issue is not going to make a difference. We are going to try to do what's right," Hutchison said.

GOP Conference Chairman Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania said he was just as strongly behind the plan to push through Bush's nominees, despite a report that he was urging Republicans to slow down.

"As far as the timing, that's up to the majority leader," he said.

Quote:

Supreme Court vacancy

Republicans want a resolution before a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court because they worry that having to get support from 60 senators would affect who Bush picks for that seat. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 80, is fighting thyroid cancer.

One judicial nominee, Idaho lawyer William Myers, already is waiting for a confirmation vote on the Senate floor.

But conservatives would rather see the final showdown come over Brown, Owen or U.S. Appeals Judge William Pryor, who was given a temporary appointment by Bush after he was blocked by Democrats.

Conservatives during the last Congress accused Democrats of acting out of racial, religious and gender prejudice in blocking Brown, Owen and Pryor. Brown is black, and Pryor is a Catholic.

The Family Research Council, a conservative organization, has arranged a rally for this weekend in Tennessee to build support for the GOP plan. It accuses Democrats of waging filibusters based on faith. Frist is scheduled to appear by videotape.

Quote:

Conservative views

Democrats have condemned those attacks and countered that their opposition is based solely on the conservative views of the nominees.

"The nomination of Janice Rogers Brown is a prime example of a nominee who sees the federal bench as a platform to advance her own extremist views," said Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts.

Republicans defended Owen and Brown, saying they were fine judges and that Democrats broke with Senate tradition by threatening to filibuster their nominations.

Owen "deserves to be confirmed and she deserves the professional courtesy of an up-or-down vote," said Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican who served with Owen on the Texas Supreme Court.

In Fair Verona · 04-24-2005, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Conservatives during the last Congress accused Democrats of acting out of racial, religious and gender prejudice in blocking Brown, Owen and Pryor. Brown is black, and Pryor is a Catholic.

I think that's my favorite part. Racist Democrats. Because you know, Catholic John Kerry wasn't their presidential nominee and Barack Obama isn't their outstanding black senator... and gender prejudice?

RedRockSedona · 04-24-2005, 11:10 AM

What I just love is the GOP, CNN and others are saying that "Nuclear Option" is a phase that the DEM coined when it was the GOP who actually coined it.

"Changing the Senate's rules on judicial filibustering was first addressed in 2003, during the successful Democratic filibuster against Miguel Estrada, whom Bush had nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Ted Stevens, a Republican Senate veteran from Alaska, was complaining in the cloakroom that the Democratic tactic should simply be declared out of order, and, soon enough, a group of Republican aides began to talk about changing the rules. It was understood at once that such a change would be explosive; Senator Trent Lott, the former Majority Leader, came up with "nuclear option," and the term stuck.

So I don't undestand why CNN and the GOP wants to LIE or BACKPEDDLE on the term unless they know it has negative connotations and/or they know that they do not have the full support needed for ending the Filibuster nor the support of several nationwide denominations who believe Frist is polarizing the religions, nor does he have the support of common Americans.

ALSO JUST FOR COMPARISON

More Than 60 Clinton Judicial Nominees Were Filibustered and never got a vote.

Senate Democrats have approved 205 of President Bush’s Judicial Nominees and rejected only ten.

THEN
In 2000, during consideration of the Paez nomination, Senator Bill Frist was among those who voted to continue the filibuster

So not only are members of the GOP LIARs but they are also HYPOCRITEs

sick little jag · 04-24-2005, 11:46 AM

The ability to filibuster is there for a reason. It's called checks and balances. If these people don't get it...then they should be kicked out of the legislative and executive branch of the government since they obviously don't understand that our system of government isn't all about getting what the president and Republicans want, just because they want it. If their judicial nominees are being filibustered and rejected, pick different ones. If they don't like the fact that all of their extremely conservative nominees are boing rejected or objected to, they should try and go more towards the middle. But since it appears more and more every day like they are trying to totally overtake the government....they won't be doing this any time soon.

I have nothing against normal Republicans but these people are just out of control.

In Fair Verona · 04-24-2005, 09:05 PM

The Republicans must think that they are going to have the majority forever if they want to get rid of filibusters. It would be poetic justice if they banned it and then in the future there is a Democrat majority and left-wing liberals are easily approved.

However, I would rather them not ban it and let them have the opportunity to use filibustering in the future, even if it is against what my position may be.

I did a little research on Janice Rogers Brown. This is an excerpt from an editorial in the New York Times from October 2003.

Quote:

She has attacked the New Deal, which gave us Social Security and other programs now central to American life, as "the triumph of our socialist revolution." And she has praised the infamous Lochner line of cases, in which the Supreme Court, from 1905 to 1937, struck down worker health and safety laws as infringing on the rights of business.

Quote:

The American Bar Association, all but a rubber stamp for the administration's nominees, has given Justice Brown a mediocre rating of qualified/not qualified, which means a majority of the evaluation committee found her qualified, a minority found her not qualified, and no one found her well qualified.

I found a list of "organizations opposed to Brown" at saveourcourts.org. However, I do not know the accuracy of this. The NAACP is listed; they published this report along with People of the American Way - LOOSE CANNON: Report In Opposition To The Confirmation Of Janice Rogers Brown To The United States Court Of Appeals For The DC Circuit.

How can the Republican party accuse Democrats of not approving her because of racism, when the NAACP doesn't approve of her?

TokyoNiGHTS · 04-25-2005, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sick little jag

If their judicial nominees are being filibustered and rejected, pick different ones. If they don't like the fact that all of their extremely conservative nominees are boing rejected or objected to, they should try and go more towards the middle..

This is where the problem is. From what i've heard Democrats are trying to block the ones that are going to put their religion over the law. And that makes sense, if you can't judge something by the law without having your religion play a major part you don't deserve to be picked. They basically want people that would've made sure Schiavo's tube was put back in no matter if that goes against what the law says. They want people that'll override abortion cases and such.

RedRockSedona · 04-25-2005, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by In Fair Verona

The Republicans must think that they are going to have the majority forever...

The problem I am having apart from the oblivious violation of separation of church and state is that the majority the Republicans have in the senate is utterly deceptive simply because the 56 Republican members there only represent 131 million people where as the 44 Democratic Senate members represent 161 million.

In Fair Verona · 04-25-2005, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TokyoNiGHTS

This is where the problem is. From what i've heard Democrats are trying to block the ones that are going to put their religion over the law. And that makes sense, if you can't judge something by the law without having your religion play a major part you don't deserve to be picked. They basically want people that would've made sure Schiavo's tube was put back in no matter if that goes against what the law says. They want people that'll override abortion cases and such.

Unfortunately, this plays right into the hands of the religious right. I heard clips of Frist's speech presented by The Family Research Council on NPR this morning... it seriously pissed me off. He was saying things about how the Democrats are hindering their religious liberties to have religious liberties or something circular like that.

It made absolutely no sense, like RedRockSedona said, it's about separation of church and state. Their rights regarding religion aren't any different than they were before. Unfortunately, Frist is preaching to just the right audience who is quick at mobilizing.

No offense to anybody religious here, but I believe that religious activists for mainstream religions never act for rights, I believe they act for priviledges. We already have rights.

TokyoNiGHTS · 04-25-2005, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by In Fair Verona

Unfortunately, this plays right into the hands of the religious right. I heard clips of Frist's speech presented by The Family Research Council on NPR this morning... it seriously pissed me off. He was saying things about how the Democrats are hindering their religious liberties to have religious liberties or something circular like that.

I saw that on CNN earlier, they then played a clip of a Democrat talking about how they'd allowed over 200 of his nominees and only denied 10. As he said, is Frist trying to say all those judges that have been approved aren't people of faith?

What it comes down to is that the millions of Americans that aren't religious shouldn't have to be judged in court by someone that's using their religion as the law instead of the actual law. You actually have to abide by the law, you don't have to abide by any religion.

Milt Palacio · 04-25-2005, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedRockSedona

The problem I am having apart from the oblivious violation of separation of church and state is that the majority the Republicans have in the senate is utterly deceptive simply because the 56 Republican members there only represent 131 million people where as the 44 Democratic Senate members represent 161 million.

There's actually 45 Democrats (Jeffords votes with and caususes with the Democrats) and 55 Republicans in the Senate. But your point is true. Democratic Senators represent a greater percentage of the population.

ceilirose · 04-25-2005, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedRockSedona

What I just love is the GOP, CNN and others are saying that "Nuclear Option" is a phase that the DEM coined when it was the GOP who actually coined it.

Absolutely and the media falls right in line with the RNC and parrots their talking points about the Democrats orginating the phrase. It's reminiscient of when Bush & Co. tried to revise the reason that the US invaded Iraq. Remember it was the imminent threat of Iraqi WMD to US security and then the reasons changed when none were found.

In this day of 24/7 cable news, the internet and political junkies with their blogs I don't see how the Republicans can think they can get away with it.

JW77 · 04-25-2005, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedRockSedona

The problem I am having apart from the oblivious violation of separation of church and state is that the majority the Republicans have in the senate is utterly deceptive simply because the 56 Republican members there only represent 131 million people where as the 44 Democratic Senate members represent 161 million.

I can kind of understand why people would bring that up, but population is the reason we have the House of Representatives. The Senate gives each state an even playing field in terms of representation. It has nothing at all to do with population. And that's why the Senate is the upper house. All the states of the union are equal there.

Wild Pikachu · 04-28-2005, 01:17 AM

There's a small segment of the GOP--unfortunately the segment that's more or less in charge--that has completely lost contact with reality. To me, the surest sign that the Republican leadership has suicidally overreached is their outrageous claim that Dubya is the first President to ever have his judicial appointments blocked--a claim that, according to the latest poll, is believed by only 20% of Americans. I mean, come on. Right or wrong, holding up the other party's nominees is a tactic that's been used by the opposition for decades, and everyone knows it. Why would you even bother trying such a ridiculously obvious lie unless you've just gone completely psychotic? Fortunately for the country (even fortunately for the GOP) there are influential elements in their party who can still read poll numbers. It's just a question of whether or not they can rein in the Radical Right fringe.

Milt Palacio · 04-28-2005, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wild Pikachu

There's a small segment of the GOP--unfortunately the segment that's more or less in charge--that has completely lost contact with reality. To me, the surest sign that the Republican leadership has suicidally overreached is their outrageous claim that Dubya is the first President to ever have his judicial appointments blocked--a claim that, according to the latest poll, is believed by only 20% of Americans. I mean, come on. Right or wrong, holding up the other party's nominees is a tactic that's been used by the opposition for decades, and everyone knows it. Why would you even bother trying such a ridiculously obvious lie unless you've just gone completely psychotic?

The Bush administration relies on an ignorant population to get their policies through. So I'm not surprised. They tried the same thing with Social Security. They mislead the public about how it worked and what the benefits would be. Then when people found out the truth, they hated it. It's a common theme.

But yes, judges have fillibustered before many times. Also, the Republicans stalled 40 Clinton nominees in committee so that they never even made it to the floor to be debated/fillibustered.


Fan Forum > General Discussion > News & Politics > Cheney Warns Democrats on Judicial Filibusters