Senate GOP going nuclear on judges (w/ Janice Brown - won't wait for USSC

[papau]

nominee

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak06.html
Senate GOP going nuclear on judges

February 6, 2005

BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Senate Republican leaders have decided to begin their use of the ''nuclear option'' -- forcing confirmation of President Bush's judicial nominations with a majority Senate vote -- on an African-American woman blocked by Democrats from a federal judgeship.

Associate Justice Janice Rogers Brown of the California Supreme Court was one of 16 Bush nominees for appellate courts whose confirmation was prevented by Democratic filibusters in the last Congress. With Republicans still short of the 60 senators needed to limit debate, the nuclear option will seek to confirm judges with a simple majority vote through parliamentary maneuvers.

Republican leaders considered waiting to use drastic tactics against a possible filibuster until Bush made his first Supreme Court nomination. They decided, however, to launch the offensive about a month from now by trying to confirm Brown.<snip>

[LizW]

1. I hope they do it

This is pretty much a declaration that the Repugs consider themselves above any attempt to reign in their power. They're giving the finger to ANY semblance of bi-partisanship. So they get Janice Brown on the bench. That's bad, but if they do this the Dems have indicated that they intend to lock together to stop ANYTHING Bush wants. Will the Repugs find Janice Brown worth losing on Social Security, tax reform and a lot of other stuff Bush wants?

[Just Me]

2. The reason I advocated a filibuster of Gonzales was because,...

,...I figured these jerks were going to do this,...and Gonzales would be the Democrats last chance to use the filibuster.

The Republicans are seriously going to regret their extreme power-mongering.

[papau]

3. I hope you are correct- from your post to God's ear re GOP feeling "regret

:-)

[Ready4Change]

4. How would they do this?

Can someone explain the "parliamentary maneuvers" they would use to do this? Thanks in advance.

[Walt Starr]

5. A Point of Order is raised with the president of the Senate

stating that filibustering nominations is unconsitutional. The president of the Senate (aka Dick cheney) rules that yes, filibustering nominations is unconstitutional. A ruling of the president of the Senate only requires a simple majority vote, thus all nominations in the future are filibuster proof.

[soup]

7. Absolutely horrifying.

Your post cut right through me and chills to the very core of my being.

Does this maneuver fall under 'advise and consent' - 'up or down'?
All it takes is Mr. F.U. Cheney? Has it ever been used before?

Damn, that is truly one of the most frightening things I've read in a Long time.

[Walt Starr]

8. Bascially, it gives Cheney the right to decide on constitutionality

which, if the Dems are smart, they will take straight to the SCOTUS. They will not appreciate that the Republicans broke the Senate rules (requirement for 60 votes for cloture of debate on any issue) by making a decision on the constitutionality of Senate rules.

I could make a damn good case before the SCOTUS that this maneuver would violate Article I Section 5 Clause 2 and Article II Section 2 Clause 1 (Advise and consent) of the Constitution.

[DistantWind88]

9. How?

This is just a senate rule, right? Can't the repukes argue that 51-49 is consent?

[Walt Starr]

11. Nope, they will be violating their own rules to do it.

The rules state specifically a 60-40 vote to close debate on ANY subject before voting is allowed. By ruling that to be unconsitutional in the case of nominations, Cheney will usurp judical authority specifically granted to the Supreme Court under Article III Section 1 of the constitution.

The SCOTUS will NOT appreciate the Executive and Legislative branches usurping a power that is SOLELY wihtin the authority of the Judiciary according to the constitution.

[DistantWind88]

13. Here's the rub

The Senate can change their rule at any time, right? They made the rule, they can modify it.

Also, are you saying that ONLY the supreme court can say a law (or rule) in this case is unconstitutional? If so, a LOT of Federal judges and courts are in BIG trouble.

[Walt Starr]

14. But to change their rules requires a two-thirds vote under their rules!

They've already tried to change the cloture rule and failed. That's evidence AGAINST their maneuver!

I am saying only the JUDICIARY can rule on the constitutionality of anything under Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the constitution and SCOTUS precedent backs that up.

In other words, the "nuclear option" itself is unconstitutional. The ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL way to determine if the Senate rules requiring a cloture vote on debate before a vote on the topic at hand is constitutional would be to take the matter before the judiciary. That means, taking it to a federal court for a ruling and using the appeal process until the SCOTUS itself rules upon the issue.

[DistantWind88]

17. Not really

The rule can be changed at any time by a simple majority. The Senate CAN change this rule by a simple majority vote. The Constitution mentions the only cases where more than a simple majority is needed from the senate and this isn't one of them. The Constitution makes mo mention of Senate rules.

I don't think the repukes will do this (paybacks are hell), but I fear there is nothing we can do to stop them.

[Walt Starr]

20. Article I Section 5 Clause 2 of the constitution speaks to the rules of

the two houses of Congress.

Under the Senate Rules:

Rule V Section 2:

The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules.

Rule XXII

"..."Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of."

IT takes a two-thirds vote of the Senate to change the rules, thus Cheney will attempt to violate Article III Section 2 Caluse 1 of the consttituion in order to circumvent the two-thirds requirement to alter the rules of the Senate by a blatant abuse of this rule:

RULE XX

QUESTIONS OF ORDER

1. A question of order may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, except when the Senate is voting or ascertaining the presence of a quorum, and, unless submitted to the Senate, shall be decided by the Presiding Officer without debate, subject to an appeal to the Senate. When an appeal is taken, any subsequent question of order which may arise before the decision of such appeal shall be decided by the Presiding Officer without debate; and every appeal therefrom shall be decided at once, and without debate; and any appeal may be laid on the table without prejudice to the pending proposition, and thereupon shall be held as affirming the decision of the Presiding Officer.

2. The Presiding Officer may submit any question of order for the decision of the Senate.

The problem is, this is NOT A QUESTION OF ORDER! Any question as to the constitutionality of a Senate Rule is a JUDICIAL QUESTION according to Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the constitution!

[DistantWind88]

21. I think post 18

effectively renders your argument moot.

[Walt Starr]

23. Ahhh, so you take a reichwinger's talking points

as evidence against the constitution.

:eyes:

How.....telling.

[DistantWind88]

25. I asked you for a link backing your position

so far, nothing.

[Walt Starr]

26. Read the fucking constitution!

Determination of the cosntitutionality of any law or rule is the sole power of the Judiciary UNDER THE CONSTITUTION!

Thus, the nuclear option is unconstitutional. The ONLY way to resolve the constitutionality of Rule XXII, under the constitution, is to TAKE IT TO COURT! Any other maneuver is bnlatantly uncosntitutional and the Democrats should challenge any such maneuver to determine the constitutionality of Senate Rules to court!

[DistantWind88]

30. As far as I can tell the Senate would merely

be enforcing a ruling that has ALREADY been declared unconstitutional (i.e., making a legislature abide by a rule enacted by a previous legislature.)

Look, I WANT to believe you, just provide ANY independent analysis that backs your point. That's all I'm asking.

[Walt Starr]

31. The precedent you cite is only for the House

The House is a new body every two years. The Senate is a continuing body and thus, under Rule V, the rules stand year to year.

[DistantWind88]

33. Peace, dude

I think you're wrong and you KNOW I am. We'll wait and see what happens. Hopefully, it won't ever materialize.

[Walt Starr]

35. You're right

Really, this is uncharted waters and it's all academic and theoretical at this point, both from the right and the left. It's never been done, and I suspect Reid has already prepared cases to go to court over the maneuver.

[Yupster]

54. They'll argue that

by not allowing a vote, it is the Democratic leadership that is violating the constitutional "Advice and Consent" responsibility.

It will be interesting to watch.

I predict a compromise.

[Walt Starr]

62. Argument doesn't hold water as REPUBLICANS set the precedent

October 1, 1968, the Republicans successfully derailed the Abe Fortas nomination as Chief Justice of the Supreme court with a filibuster.

The Republicans set the precedent for filibustering judicial nominations. That's why Gonzales was not filibustered as there was no precedence for it. Democrats can successfully argue they are only doing what the Republicans themselves did when they were in the minority.

[Ready4Change]

12. Thanks for putting it so clearly.

Why has it not been done before now?

[Endangered Specie]

15. Mainly because...

the Republicans were the first to USE this 60-40 filibuster to block judges (Clinton's).

The Senate is usually described as clubby, and there are things you 'aren't' supposed to do, even though you could. It should be noted that the Republicans break alot more of these 'unwritten' rules.

They were the first to use the filibuster to block judges (originally considered a no no)
They (might) be the first to use thise backdoor to stop Dems from doing what they did (another no no).
Some other things that come to mind are going after the other parties leader (Daschle, another no no, which they just broke).

There are probaly others (esp with the whole Delay thing).

[Walt Starr]

16. Because it's unconstitutional

and will not stand up in a federal court. It requires the Vice President of the United States to determine the constitutionality of a Senate rule and matters of constitutionality are reserved to the Judiciary under Article III Section 2 Clause 1 of the constitution.

[DistantWind88]

19. Can you show any link that will support

your position? I think you are wrong.

[Walt Starr]

22. Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

The "point of order" used in the nuclear option is not, in fact, a point of order but is rather a point of constitutional law. The Vice President of the United States is not empowered to make decisions on the constitutionality of any action and must, under Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the constitution, defer such a decision to the JUDICIARY.

The nuclear option usurps a power specifically granted SOLELY to the judiciary by the constitution.

[DistantWind88]

27. The VP doesn't have to declare

the rule unconstitutional. He's not usurping the powers of the Judiciary as I see it.

Can you provide ANY analysis that supports your position? Show me ANYTHING that says the Senate can't change their rules. I WANT to think they can't, but it looks like they can.

[Walt Starr]

28. That's what he does under the nuclear option

A point of order about the constitutionality of Rule XXII is raised, Cheney rules it is unconstitutional. That is an usurpation of a power reserved SOLELY to the Judiciary under Article III of the constitution.

I've already provided you with a copy of Rule XXII, which states specifically the rules on cloture cannot be changed without a two-thirds consent.

[Ready4Change]

36. Ok, what if he defers that decision to THIS SCOTUS?

How is it likely they would rule?

[Walt Starr]

37. Unknown

and it cannot go to the SCOTUS to begin with. It must start at the lowest level of the federal courts and work its way up. There are differing opinions about the constitutionality of this, however, the constitution gives the power to each body of the Congress to make their rules. The rule of the Senate requires a cloture vote to end debate on any matter. I beleive the SCOTUS will be loathe to override the power of the Senate to set its own rules.

[Ready4Change]

39. Ok, what if they don't follow that process?

What if they attempt a fait accompli? (sp?) Cheney, illegally, declares filibustering court appointments unconstitutional, and they move on to forced voting.

I assume there would be protests/appeals to the judicial branch to stop this, but how long can/do those take? Is it possible they could force the voting on several judges before the appeals process halts their actions, and if so, would the forced votes stand?

(Hope I'm understanding this right and asking a clear question, and thanks for the continued answers.)

[Walt Starr]

40. Reid then ties up the Senate with nothing but procedural votes

and takes to to court himself. Sue Cheney and the Republicans. Name each and every one of them.

Meanwhile, every request for unanimous consent results ina challenge. Every challenge results in a suggestion of the absence of a quorum. Every quorum call results in forcing the missing Senators to be sent for.

Basically, the up or down vote on a single nominee becomes the last vote on actual business in the Senate. Using one procedural maneuver results in nothing but more procedural maneuvers.

[Ready4Change]

46. But would the Dems follow through?

If the Dems take this action, couldn't the GOP spin it as the DEMS nuking the senate? Ie: The GOP may have been unconstitutionally forcing a vote, but it would be the Democrats actually shutting down the senate.

I can easily see this resulting in headlines reading "DEMOCRATS FREEZE SENATE" rather than "REPUBLICANS VIOLATE CONSTITUTION." Would Democrats risk this, or just roll over (yet again?)

[Walt Starr]

47. The Dems would have to risk it

There is no other option. Forcing a bogus removal of the filibuster effectively destroys the Democratic Party anyway.

[Ready4Change]

56. Thanks for all the responses.

(PS: I think you meant "ALLOWING" a bogus removal of the filibuster..."?)

Sorry to have kept asking questions. I must've sounded like a kid who asks "why is the sky blue" and then keeps asking "Why" after each explaination.

:)

[lonestarnot]

68. Correctomundo. But they also have the judiciary wrapped

up.... They have all the machinery. We're doomed!

[cestpaspossible]

18. Informative background article

it is from a rw perspective, but it is the most complete discussion of the issue I've found.

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/confirmation_watch/nuclear_option.htm

[Walt Starr]

24. There is a slight problem with their argument

It dismisses Article III, Section 2, Caluse 1 of the cosntitution. The Vice President CANNOT determine the constitutionality of any issue. That is a power reserved SOLEY to the Judiciary.

Filibusters of nominees may well be unconstitutional, but the Vice PResident and the Senate are not empowered to determine that. Only the Judiciary has such authority under the constitution.

[DistantWind88]

32. Well, we'll have to wait and see won't we?

I hope you are right, but I think the Supremes will rule in favor of the Repukes.

[cestpaspossible]

38. Here's what I see as the flaw in your argument.

You are saying that the VP (who I will hereafter refer to as 'the Chair') would be 'ruling on constitutionality', but in fact, the Chair would be ruling on whether or not standing rule XXII applies. At least that's the way I understand it.

[Walt Starr]

41. Nope, he rules on constitutionality

that's the point of order called into question, the constituionality of Rule XXII applying to nominations.

[cestpaspossible]

42. What if he's not asked about constitutionality.

"I rise for a point of order."

"the chair recognizes the Senator from red-state-america"

"Does rule XXII apply?"

[Walt Starr]

43. Read Rule XXII

It applies in all questions of closing debate to vote on the matter. That one cannot fly.

Check everything said about the so-called "nuclear option" The quesiton put before the chair is the constitutionality of Rule XXII with regards to judicial nominees.

Just FYI:

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of rule II or rule IV or any other rule of the Senate, at any time a motion signed by sixteen enators, to bring to a close the debate upon any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, is presented to the Senate, the Presiding Officer, or clerk at the direction of the Presiding Officer, shall at once state the motion to the Senate, and one hour after the Senate meets on the following calendar day but one, he shall lay the motion before the Senate and direct that the clerk call the roll, and upon the ascertainment that a quorum is present, the Presiding Officer shall, without debate, submit to the Senate by a yea-and-nay vote the question:

"Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.

The word is ANY. The question is constitutionality of Rule XXII with regards to nominees.

[cestpaspossible]

44. The Chair gets to rule on points of order.

You may disagree with him, you may even be right, but, the Chair is the one who gets to make the ruling.

[Walt Starr]

45. Must be an actual point of order

Sorry, read Rule XX. If Cheney arbitrarily decides that a rule stating specifically that it applies to closing ANY debate on ANY matter and the Republicans agree, the Senate is no longer working under any rules whatsoever save what the Republicans state.

This again opens it up to a lawsuit and gives an even higher liklihood of being struck down by the courts as the argument would be that the Presiding Officer is choosing not to follow the rules. The word "any" cannot be argued with.

[cestpaspossible]

52. The essence of your argument is wrong.

You are basing your argument on Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution.

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; --between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

But the Senate rules are not a Case in Law, the Laws of the United States, or Treaties made under their Authority , a Case affecting Ambassadors, a Case of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction, a Controvery to which the United States is a party, a Controversy between two or more states, between a State and a Citizen of another State, between Citizens of different States, between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, or between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

The Senate rules are covered in the constitution, Article I, Section 5, Clause 2:

Clause 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Not only do the Senate rules not fit any of the categories spelled out in Article III, Section 2, Clause 1, but according to your interpretation, the Senate needs the help of the Judiciary to change its own rules, in direct contradiction to Article I, Section 5, Clause 2.

[Walt Starr]

55. Not at all

A ruling on the constitutionality of something is violating Article III Section 2 Clause 1 of the constitution. Only the Judiciary can determine the cosntitutionality of any question.

If the chair determins that it can arbitrarily overrrule rules of the senate as a point of order, there is a definite civil action that can be taken.

The Senate Rules stand and are very clear. Cloture is required to end debate and take a vote on a matter. This applies to any business of the Senate as clearly stated in Rule XXII. To change this rule requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate, again, clearly stated in Rule XXII.

Failure to follow the rules it sets is reason for a civil lawsuit.

[cestpaspossible]

59. You keep asserting something that is in dispute.

No matter how many times you make the assertion that the Chair would be "ruling on the constitutionality of something" the fact remains that that is the point of contention. That is the essence of your argument and simply repeating it does not make it more persuasive, especially since it directly contradicts the plain language of the Constitution.

Why did you completely ignore my previous post in your response? Under which of the categories listed in Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 do the Senate rules fit? Are they Laws of the United States? No. Are they Treaties made under the Authority of the Law? No. And so on.

Only the Judiciary can determine the contitutionality of any question.

But you are the only one asserting that the chair would be ruling on constitutionality. Your only reference in support of this assertion is Article III, Section 2, Clause 1.

Unless you want to have a real dialogue by telling me under which of the categories listed in Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 you believe the Senate rules fit, and why the Senate needing the help of the Judiciary to alter its rules would not violate Article I, Section 5, Clause 2, I'll consider the discussion over, for now, with no hard feelings.

[Walt Starr]

61. That's the point! This has never been done, thus we are breaking new groun

I am making an argument, same as the pukes.

[cestpaspossible]

65. That is simply, factually wrong. It was done in 1975 by the Dems.

That's when the rule was changed from 67 votes to 60.

I guess you are declining my invitation to continue the dialogue... but I'll try again, because I'd really like to hear your answer.


Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 spells out the scope of judicial power. It lists all cases to which the "judicial Power shall extend". Which of the cases listed in Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 do you believe describes the rules of the Senate, and why the would Senate needing the help of the Judiciary to alter its own rules not violate Article I, Section 5, Clause 2?

[Walt Starr]

66. That's where YOU'RE WRONG!

The rules were changed within the framework of the rules, not via a point of order.

Specifically, where the Judicial authority extends is a case arising from the constitution.

[cestpaspossible]

70. Capitalization does not add gravitas or credibility to your statements.

The rules were changed within the framework of the rules, not via a point of order.

I can't find any references that back up this assertion of yours... upon what are you basing this? Link or citation, please.

In actuality, the rule was changed subsequent to a point of order by Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield. My reference: this article in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, which is any even more comprehensive discussion of the issue than my previous link, and written from a purely legal perspective rather than a rw legal perspective. I encourage you to read it.

I'll try one final time:

Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 spells out the scope of judicial power. It lists all cases to which the "judicial Power shall extend". Which of the cases listed in Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 do you believe describes the rules of the Senate, and why the would Senate needing the help of the Judiciary to alter its own rules not violate Article I, Section 5, Clause 2?

[Walt Starr]

71. I;'ve answered you multiple times

If you don't like the answer you got, that's your problem.

[cestpaspossible]

73. I'm respectfully asking you to point me to the post

in which you answer the following question, or, you could simply repeat your answer here if you can't find the post.

Which of the cases listed in Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 do you believe describes the rules of the Senate, and why the Senate needing the help of the Judiciary to alter its own rules would not violate Article I, Section 5, Clause 2?

You did at one point make the statement: Specifically, where the Judicial authority extends is a case arising from the constitution.

But that is not consistent with Article III, Section 2, Clause 1, which is what you are relying on as the foundation of your argument. It lays out very specifically the scope of judicial authority. You haven't said which of the specific cases listed under Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 is a case that encompasses the Senate rules. You also haven't said why the Senate needing the help of the Judiciary to alter its own rules does not violate Article I, Section 5, Clause 2.

I look forward to your respectful reply.

[Lostnote03]

6. What were the Senators thinking when they voted for Gonzo....

....More of the just be nice and things will change outlook....The GOP Dung have pre empted all bipartisan efforts and the Dems just waltz right along....Daschle attempted to work with the Senate and look what it got him, being compared to OBL and Hussein in his re election bid....I understand that the Dems are fighting back however they have allowed themselves to be out maneuvered at crucial moments....The GOP agenda is almost totally predictable, and for our Dems to not understand by now that the GOP Dung have elevated the meaning of politics as a blood sport is beyond naivety....

[DancingBear]

10. I wish I'd said that

:) :)

[cestpaspossible]

60. Your post gives the false impression that most Dems voted for Gonzales,

whereas in actual fact, the overwhelming majority of Dems voted against Gonzales.

[BlueInRed]

29. Didn't Reid say if they try it, he will tie the Senate in knots? nt

[Walt Starr]

34. There will never again be a unanimous consent decree

Ever request for unanimous consent will be challeneged. Every challenge of a unanimous consent decree will result in a quorum call. Every quorum call will result in a requirement to have the absent Senators sent for before coninuing business.

The Democrats have an unlimited arsenal at their beck and call to shut down all work in the Senate. Not only will that be the last vote for a judicial nominee ever taken, it will be the last vote taken on business for a good long time.

It's easy to force quorum calls and having the absent Senators sent for. A little coordination within a very small minority allows the senate to be shut down for good.

[BlueInRed]

48. Good, I hope Harry makes them rue the day they go nuclear

[rockymountaindem]

49. Wouldn't that be bad for the party?

The media would paint us as real obstructionists and the usual chorus would shout us down and hurt us even more.

[BlueInRed]

50. They can try that, and it will all depend on how the Democrats respond

to the allegation. If they are strong, they can turn it back on the Rs. If they waffle as they have in the past, yes the obstructionist charge will probably stick.

[rockymountaindem]

58. That's what I thought too.

If they can't handle the pressure it would be pretty bad. On the other hand, if they say something like "we can no longer allow the Senate to be nothing more than a partisan rubber stamp for the GOP. Therefore we have decided to shut it down instead of allowing it to be used as a shield for one party government." Something like that would work, I think.

I really hope it doesn't come to that, however. Needless to say bi-partisanship would be great, but I don't predict any will be forthcoming.

[Walt Starr]

64. They can also state truthfully that the Republicans set the precedent for

the filibustering of Judicial nominations when an October 1, 1968 filibuster of the Abe Fortas nomination for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

[Walt Starr]

51. Take away the filibuster and that's all the Democrats have left

and yes, they would have to do it. They would have no choice.

[BornaDem]

57. Wouldn't we be better off if the R's do this and Reid shuts down...

the Senate like he has promised to do? There would be no budget passed, no SS "reform" (deform) etc. Seems to me if Reid can hold his members together and no business is transacted at all, that's a win for us, perhaps the best we can hope for in the next two yrs.

[Walt Starr]

63. He doesn't even need all of the Democratic Senators

Procedrually mucking up the works in the Senate can be carried out by as few as 26 Senators.

[BlueInRed]

67. That's a much more achievable number n/t

[Walt Starr]

69. 26 Senators have the capability to make life miserable in the Senate

Raising points of order, challenging every last request for unanimous consent to extend comments, etc. etc. etc.

Just a few Senators can make it nearly impossible to get anything done.

[BlueInRed]

77. What would happen if 26 Senators decided to do that on SS n/t

[Walt Starr]

78. It would take a long time before it got to a vote. n/t

[Yupster]

79. It didn't work too well for Newt

I hope Reid has a better plan.

[gulfcoastliberal]

53. Janice Brown is an extreme right-wing incompetent

Who should have been disbarred instead of put on the California supreme court. She is an insult and a danger to justice. The repugs will launch this campaign trying to paint the dems as racist (again!) since she's black.

Look up her record. It's appalling!

The dems should call the repukes bluff. Enough of the jellyfish act.

[Disturbed]

74. Janice Brown

I saw her confirmation hearings. She is truely a RW wako. Blocking her is the correct place for the Dems to start. There should be a 100% no vote and a filibuster. Any Dem that votes yes should be voted out of office. There may even be some Paleo-Conserves that vote no.

[joanski01]

72. Thank you, Walt Starr for

all the enlightment you have shed for me on this issue. I appreciate all the time you took to explain all this stuff.

All I know is that Harry Reid said on one of the TV shows that if the Repukes do the nuclear option, he will screw up the Senate. I truly hope he does. If he doesn't, nothing else will matter.

[Lostnote03]

75. Thanks Walt Starr and Ce'st Pas for the insight

[cestpaspossible]

76. I just wish I were reaching a different conclusion.