Filibuster Deal Puts Democrats In a Bind - DFWstangs Forums
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 7 (permalink) Old 07-04-2005, 11:00 AM Thread Starter
Small Fry
breadfan35's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Keebler Tree
Posts: 10,287
Filibuster Deal Puts Democrats In a Bind

Time for some fun.

Democrats' hopes of blocking a staunchly conservative Supreme Court nominee on ideological grounds could be seriously undermined by the six-week-old bipartisan deal on judicial nominees, key senators said yesterday.


With President Bush expected to name a successor to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor next week, liberals are laying the groundwork to challenge the nominee if he or she leans solidly to the right on affirmative action, abortion and other contentious issues. But even if they can show that the nominee has sharply held views on matters that divide many Americans, some of the 14 senators who crafted the May 23 compromise appear poised to prevent that strategy from blocking confirmation to the high court, according to numerous interviews.

The pact, signed by seven Democrats and seven Republicans, says a judicial nominee will be filibustered only under "extraordinary circumstances." Key members of the group said yesterday that a nominee's philosophical views cannot amount to "extraordinary circumstances" and that therefore a filibuster can be justified only on questions of personal ethics or character.

The distinction is crucial because Democrats want to force Bush to pick a centrist, not a staunch conservative as many activist groups on the political right desire. Holding only 44 of the Senate's 100 seats, Democrats have no way to block a Republican-backed nominee without employing a filibuster, which takes 60 votes to stop.

GOP leaders, sensing the Democrats' bind, expressed confidence yesterday that the Senate will confirm Bush's eventual nominee, no matter how ideologically rigid. "I think there is every expectation, every reason to believe that there will be no successful filibuster," Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on "Fox News Sunday."

Under the "Gang of 14" accord, the seven Republican signers agreed to deny Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) the votes he needed to carry out his threat to bar judicial filibusters by changing Senate rules. The seven are implicitly released from the deal if the Democratic signers renege on their end. Yesterday, key players suggested the seven Democrats will automatically be in default if they contend a nominee's ideological views constitute "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify a filibuster.

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (news, bio, voting record) (R-S.C.), one of the 14 signers, noted that the accord allowed the confirmation of three Bush appellate court nominees so conservative that Democrats had successfully filibustered them for years: Janice Rogers Brown, William H. Pryor Jr. and Priscilla R. Owen. Because Democrats accepted them under the deal, Graham said on the Fox program, it is clear that ideological differences will not justify a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee.

"Based on what we've done in the past with Brown, Pryor and Owen," Graham said, "ideological attacks are not an 'extraordinary circumstance.' To me, it would have to be a character problem, an ethics problem, some allegation about the qualifications of the person, not an ideological bent."

Sen. Ben Nelson (news, bio, voting record) (Neb.), a leader of the seven Democratic signers, largely concurred. Nelson "would agree that ideology is not an 'extraordinary circumstance' unless you get to the extreme of either side," his spokesman, David DiMartino, said in an interview.

The debate goes to the heart of Democratic leaders' strategy to prevent Bush from replacing the centrist, swing-voting O'Connor with a justice more aligned with conservatives Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. For example, if Bush were to nominate Brown -- the outspoken California judge recently named to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit -- "I could assure you that would be a very, very, very difficult fight, and she probably would be filibustered," Sen. Joseph R. Biden (news, bio, voting record) Jr. (D-Del.), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

But Graham flatly rejected that view. With help from only one or two fellow Gang of 14 members, he is positioned to dissolve the deal and thwart Biden's scenario -- either by having enough Democratic signers refuse to back a filibuster, or by having enough GOP members support Frist in outlawing judicial filibusters.

Graham predicted that Bush will nominate "a solid conservative" to replace O'Connor. Noting that the conservative Thomas replaced the liberal Thurgood Marshall, Graham said: "This idea of an ideological balance being maintained by a particular president has never been the standard."

Throughout the weekend, liberal and conservative activists sparred over an issue that has dogged judicial confirmation battles for years: How hard should nominees be pressed to say where they stand on contentious issues that could come before the court?

Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record) (R-Tex.) has said he would not ask nominees where they stand on abortion, affirmative action and similar matters, but Sen. Charles E. Schumer (news, bio, voting record) (D-N.Y.) said he certainly would. "The Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment that has enormous power, and I think the number one thing that I am interested in are the nominee's views," Schumer said on ABC's "This Week," where he appeared with fellow Judiciary Committee member Cornyn.

Asked if a senator might press nominees on whether the 1973 abortion rights ruling in Roe v. Wade "is settled law," Cornyn replied: "I think it's an appropriate question to ask what their views are on cases that have been decided and judicial opinions that have been written. But to ask them how they would decide, not knowing what the posture of the case would be if it were presented, I think is inappropriate, and it's asking them to prejudge the case." Schumer appeared surprised by the Roe comment, saying, "Maybe there's less disagreement than it appears."

Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), handling a similar question on NBC's "Meet the Press," said: "I wouldn't say, 'Are you going to uphold Roe?' But I would ask a nominee . . . 'When you have a decision which has been in effect for decades, and people have come to rely upon it, what kind of circumstances, how extraordinary must they be' " to try to overturn it?

The 14 signers of the May 23 agreement have said a Supreme Court vacancy would put their accord to its toughest test, and Republicans seemed eager to oblige them. McConnell said the agreement establishes "that there will be no filibusters except under extraordinary circumstances. And we know that judges like Janice Rogers Brown and Bill Pryor and Priscilla Owen are not an extraordinary circumstance."

Some conservatives would like to see Brown -- who is virulently opposed by many liberals -- elevated to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Senate would be hard pressed to reject her only months after confirming her to the appellate court. But Democrats said the Supreme Court stands alone in importance, and a senator's vote for an appellate court nomination plays no role in a Supreme Court choice. "Totally different ballgame," Biden told CBS

1993 Coupe
breadfan35 is offline  
Sponsored Links
post #2 of 7 (permalink) Old 07-04-2005, 11:48 AM
mikeb's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 22,413
It'll be interesting to see if the dems can resist filibustering in the near future. I think they'll cave in sooner or later.
mikeb is offline  
post #3 of 7 (permalink) Old 07-04-2005, 02:25 PM
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ellis County
Posts: 18,368
This will further lead to their demise...

CHL holder and Conservative...AKA "Domestic Terrorist"
Vertnut is offline  
post #4 of 7 (permalink) Old 07-05-2005, 11:21 AM
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 783
D*mn it! Let the dems do their fili! It will only show their true ignorance...we put them there to do a job and as far as I'm concerned all parties are acting for their own benefits. Forget us..HELL we elected them. But, I'm a young guy what do I know?
MGDMike is offline  
post #5 of 7 (permalink) Old 07-06-2005, 09:42 PM
Sgt Beavis's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lake Dallas, TX
Posts: 10,859
I hope the do filibuster any SC nominee. Bill Frist had better pull out his big balls and kill the filibuster when it happens. If the Dems to filibuster and the "moderate" Democrats break the McCain comprimise, then John McCain can kiss his Presidential asperations goodbye.

We're Adopting. Contact us through our website.

You can also LIKE us on Facebook
Sgt Beavis is offline  
post #6 of 7 (permalink) Old 07-07-2005, 09:09 AM
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 7,008
Anyone else sick of this party vs. party thing? Get back to working together and getting this country back on the correct path. It seems nobody can work together now and are only doing things for their own benefit.
WhtEdge is offline  
post #7 of 7 (permalink) Old 07-07-2005, 11:46 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Fort Worth
Posts: 14,842
Originally Posted by WhtEdge
Anyone else sick of this party vs. party thing? Get back to working together and getting this country back on the correct path. It seems nobody can work together now and are only doing things for their own benefit.
Have you ever seen a sticker that says "Anyone but (insert Democratic candidate)" like the dems did with the "Anyone but Bush" stickers?

I say the party with the hostility needs to come to the table with honesty and integrity.

BTW, I can't wait to put my "Anyone but Hillary" sticker on if she gets the nomination. Turnabout is fair play.


If you like the IRS, DMV and the Post Office, you will love Obamacare!

“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”
Robert A. Heinlein

I have to agree with a quote from former Treasury Secretary William E. Simon: "Bad politicians are sent to Washington by good people who don't vote."
Paladin is offline  
Sponsored Links


Quick Reply

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the DFWstangs Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome