Time for the Democrats to issue a threat: "If you attempt to filibuster my nominee..."

[usregimechange]

(joint presser with Leahy and Reid), we will change Senate rules ending the filibuster of judicial nominees for the remainder of my term in office."

[virgogal]

1. What does "joint presser" mean?

[calimary]

2. A joint press conference. One held by more than one person.

[virgogal]

3. Gotcha------thanks.

[calimary]

6. No problem!

:hi:

[Atticus]

4. Are you kidding? Some of their "distinguished colleagues" might get their tighty-whiteys in

a twist. Wouldn't be collegial or bipartisan, don't you know.

I fear that WHEN (not IF) they threaten a filibuster, we will apologize and ask their permission to name a "better, more bipartisan" nominee.

[usregimechange]

7. how come they never have to?

[elocs]

5. Wishing for something does not make it so, or even possible.

For one, Obama is against the idea and I don't see it going anywhere without his approval.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/77125-changing-filibuster-rules-not-an-option-say-dem-aides--plus-reid-and-obama

Changing filibuster rules not an option, say Dem aides — plus Reid and Obama
By J. Taylor Rushing - 01/20/10 04:24 PM ET
As Senate Democrats grapple with options to pass the healthcare reform bill in the wake of Tuesday’s election loss in Massachusetts, the option of changing the chamber’s filibuster rules is off the table.

A senior Democratic aide said leaders haven’t considered lowering the threshold for a filibuster, as has been done before as recently as 1975, when the threshold was lowered from 67 to the current 60.

Now at 59 seats with GOP candidate Scott Brown’s victory, Democrats are denied their filibuster-proof majority, leading some liberal bloggers as well as Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) to suggest simply changing the rules.

But a senior Democratic aide this week said that isn’t likely, given the rancorous debate in 2005, when Republicans then controlled the Senate and considered changing the filibuster rules in light of a fight over judicial nominations. The so-called “nuclear option” was eventually dismissed.

“You would be changing the institution,” the Democratic aide said of the idea. “This can be a frustrating place, but the minority still has its rights. I don’t know that that’s ever been on the table.

But then when did reality ever stop a DUer? :shrug:

[usregimechange]

8. Not saying they will, saying they should and just such an attempt may make it so

and I think someone needs to float it to give them something to think about.

[elocs]

9. Well, if you are going to wish for something impossible, wish for something greater than that.

I know what you are suggesting, but it will never happen. Never.

[tritsofme]

10. You can't temporarily change the rules.

If you changed the rules like that, it would be permanent and not end with any particular senator's term.

Neither side would have much credibility in such a fight, given the role reversal from the 2005 debate on this subject. It's not going to happen, and Republicans won't filibuster the Stevens replacement.

[usregimechange]

11. Which is why it is a threat, a threat that got the Republicans:

http://www.fjc.gov/public/home.nsf/hisj

and others.

[walldude]

12. LMFAO... wishful thinking...

More like "if you threaten to fillibuster our nominee... we'll pick another one!" :rofl: