The Countdown Is On
I picked this up from Hugh Hewitt this morning. It seems as though the New York Times is now getting a bit more involved in the ongoing debate over the Constitutional Option. This morning’s Times story on it painted an interesting picture.
http://hughhewitt.com/
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/politics/15judges.html?hp&ex=1116216000&en=37f25abf7e57c36d&ei=5094&partner=homepage
The two lawmakers, Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, and Senator Harry Reid, his Democratic counterpart, are locked in a dispute over the Senate rules that could shape the future makeup of the Supreme Court, permanently alter the power of a Senate minority party, thrust the chamber into parliamentary chaos and determine the two men's political prospects. Dr. Frist has said he plans to bring their confrontation to a head as early as Wednesday, leaving the two men just days to work out a possible compromise.
It will shape the future of the high court, which is a natural process for any president. It is in the president’s purview to appoint justices. This is not a partisan thing; each president has the opportunity to do this should a justice on the high court step down during that particular president’s term.
And on altering the power of the party in the minority in the Senate, what in God’s name are they talking about? We are not talking about removing the full power of a filibuster. We are talking about ending the unconstitutional filibuster that was executed during the president’s first term. Nominees face such tactics in committee, where if they do pass on, debate is over, and a vote is owed to that nominee.
And if we are not eliminating all filibusters, as the Democrats attempted to do in 1995, then where is the parliamentary chaos that the Times foresees? Neither party will be able to filibuster a nominee. They can still filibuster legislation until the cows come home. They can talk until they are blue in the face attempting to kill a highway bill, or an appropriations bill for further funding for our troops, or a pet pork-barrel project. But filibustering a nominee will be a no-no.
For the last week, Christian conservatives who view the court fight as the climax of the culture war have been using radio broadcasts and e-mail newsletters to urge voters to tell their senators that any compromise would be a betrayal. On the other side, the liberal group People for the American Way has sent an e-mail message to supporters asking to connect their mobile phone numbers to a computerized system that will connect them to the Senate switchboard as soon as Republicans move to change the rules.
Excuse me, but our religion has absolutely ZERO to do with this debate. Yes, we are both Christian, which by the Left's definition makes us part of the "religious right", but our faith is not driving our support of the Option. My other half and I are firmly on the side of the Constitution, and the hope and belief that these ten justices will stand on the side of the Constitution, as well. Yes, these justices are the most qualified ones for a possible appointment to the high court when the vacancies begin occurring. And they have proven in decision after decision that they interpret the law, they do not invent it. And a compromise by any senator against the Option is a betrayal. It is a betrayal of their oath to their states, and to the nation, and it should be addressed by voters the next time these people are up for reelection.
The Constitution is the single most important document to this nation. I know those on the Left disregard it, or prefer to play with it, illegally, within the courts. And that is why this must be addressed here and now. What the Left is doing is not abiding by a nation of laws, but ruling by fiat because they cannot win in the realm of ideas, or at election time. It has happened to them for years. They turned to the courts to get an agenda rammed down the nation’s throat that no common-sense thinking individual would approve of as ballot initiatives, nor would an intelligent legislature support.
Mr. Reid has proposed compromises that would trade acceptance of some judges for withdrawal of others but leave intact the minority's right to stop Supreme Court nominees and others. But aides said Friday that Dr. Frist was insisting only on allowing the Senate to hold a vote on each nominee, which leaves open at least the remote possibility that the two sides could avert the showdown if Democrats agreed to allow votes for all the judges and at least a handful of Republicans in turn indicated that they would help Democrats vote down a few of them.
And this goes back to the hypocrisy of the Left that Thomas pointed out on just a day ago. "You have ten nominees, choose two and chuck the rest even though they’re all too extreme for any of us." If they are all too extreme, then why allow a single one of them a vote? Circular reasoning must be a trademark of Reid because his excuse for this absurd compromise is full of holes.
After Mr. Reid referred in a speech on the floor to a "confidential report from the F.B.I." on a certain nominee, Republicans accused him of "hitting below the belt," as Senator George Allen, Republican of Virginia, put it in a press conference Friday. He called on Mr. Reid to apologize, just as Mr. Reid had for calling the president "a loser" a few days before.
On Friday night, the Justice Department sent a letter to Mr. Reid, Dr. Frist and other senators expressing concerns about his disclosure of the F.B.I. report. Jim Manley, a spokesman for Mr. Reid, called the letter a "ridiculous partisan attack," noting that the existence of the report had been public for nearly a year.
If I were in the Justice Department I would be concerned over Reid’s admission, too. I wrote on this when the news broke, and I was livid. Many people agree with me that there should be an ethics investigation into this incident, and at the least, Reid should be censured. The nominee has no idea what is in that report, and Reid had no business sticking his nose in that file.
Former Senator Tom Daschle, the previous Democratic leader, said, "I think Senator Frist is under extraordinary pressure from the more conservative elements within his caucus and his base and I think he has concluded, erroneously in my judgment, that he has no choice."
Does anyone really care what this literal loser has to say on this issue. He was the primary reason that these justices could not get their appropriate votes. Mr. Obstruction practically threw fits anytime a nominee that matched the caliber of these ten came onto the floor of the Senate. Frist is under pressure from his base to put the rules back the way they were. His judgment is not in error at all; Frist has no choice unless he would like to see these ten be filibustered like before. These people deserve a vote, and Daschle, Reid, and the like do not seem to understand this.
Meanwhile, the WaPo decided to jump on this today, and had virtually the same story that the Times ran, but they included a little something else.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/13/AR2005051301431.html
One potential agreement would guarantee that two of the nominees would be confirmed and the other five would be granted votes with no assurance of the outcome. The handling of the other five nominees remains the main sticking point between the GOP and Democratic leaders.
Democrats are insisting that in exchange for clearing the way for two of the judges to be confirmed, Frist would have to promise not to seek to change the filibuster rule on judicial nominees through 2006. Under the negotiations, Republicans could choose which two nominees would be cleared.
In a related negotiation, both leaders are monitoring an effort led by two moderate senators, Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), to amass five other Democrats and five other Republicans who would assure that the two nominees are approved. Nelson, McCain and the 10 other senators are participating in ongoing talks, people on both sides of the negotiations said.
This is not a deal. It is political suicide for the GOP in the Senate. And this is one more nail in the coffin of John McCain. This SOB needs to shut up and go play in the corner with the children while the adults hammer this out. Frist’s compromise would be fine with BOTH of us (though my other half stands on the side of "no compromise"). But this compromise that is being offered by Reid, and perpetuated by McCain is just more trouble, and it will all be on the GOP.
If that is the only option left on the table, then it is time for Frist to pull the trigger on the Constitutional Option. And it will only become "nuclear" if the Democrats throw a tantrum, and shut down the Senate.
The Bunny ;)
I picked this up from Hugh Hewitt this morning. It seems as though the New York Times is now getting a bit more involved in the ongoing debate over the Constitutional Option. This morning’s Times story on it painted an interesting picture.
http://hughhewitt.com/
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/politics/15judges.html?hp&ex=1116216000&en=37f25abf7e57c36d&ei=5094&partner=homepage
The two lawmakers, Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, and Senator Harry Reid, his Democratic counterpart, are locked in a dispute over the Senate rules that could shape the future makeup of the Supreme Court, permanently alter the power of a Senate minority party, thrust the chamber into parliamentary chaos and determine the two men's political prospects. Dr. Frist has said he plans to bring their confrontation to a head as early as Wednesday, leaving the two men just days to work out a possible compromise.
It will shape the future of the high court, which is a natural process for any president. It is in the president’s purview to appoint justices. This is not a partisan thing; each president has the opportunity to do this should a justice on the high court step down during that particular president’s term.
And on altering the power of the party in the minority in the Senate, what in God’s name are they talking about? We are not talking about removing the full power of a filibuster. We are talking about ending the unconstitutional filibuster that was executed during the president’s first term. Nominees face such tactics in committee, where if they do pass on, debate is over, and a vote is owed to that nominee.
And if we are not eliminating all filibusters, as the Democrats attempted to do in 1995, then where is the parliamentary chaos that the Times foresees? Neither party will be able to filibuster a nominee. They can still filibuster legislation until the cows come home. They can talk until they are blue in the face attempting to kill a highway bill, or an appropriations bill for further funding for our troops, or a pet pork-barrel project. But filibustering a nominee will be a no-no.
For the last week, Christian conservatives who view the court fight as the climax of the culture war have been using radio broadcasts and e-mail newsletters to urge voters to tell their senators that any compromise would be a betrayal. On the other side, the liberal group People for the American Way has sent an e-mail message to supporters asking to connect their mobile phone numbers to a computerized system that will connect them to the Senate switchboard as soon as Republicans move to change the rules.
Excuse me, but our religion has absolutely ZERO to do with this debate. Yes, we are both Christian, which by the Left's definition makes us part of the "religious right", but our faith is not driving our support of the Option. My other half and I are firmly on the side of the Constitution, and the hope and belief that these ten justices will stand on the side of the Constitution, as well. Yes, these justices are the most qualified ones for a possible appointment to the high court when the vacancies begin occurring. And they have proven in decision after decision that they interpret the law, they do not invent it. And a compromise by any senator against the Option is a betrayal. It is a betrayal of their oath to their states, and to the nation, and it should be addressed by voters the next time these people are up for reelection.
The Constitution is the single most important document to this nation. I know those on the Left disregard it, or prefer to play with it, illegally, within the courts. And that is why this must be addressed here and now. What the Left is doing is not abiding by a nation of laws, but ruling by fiat because they cannot win in the realm of ideas, or at election time. It has happened to them for years. They turned to the courts to get an agenda rammed down the nation’s throat that no common-sense thinking individual would approve of as ballot initiatives, nor would an intelligent legislature support.
Mr. Reid has proposed compromises that would trade acceptance of some judges for withdrawal of others but leave intact the minority's right to stop Supreme Court nominees and others. But aides said Friday that Dr. Frist was insisting only on allowing the Senate to hold a vote on each nominee, which leaves open at least the remote possibility that the two sides could avert the showdown if Democrats agreed to allow votes for all the judges and at least a handful of Republicans in turn indicated that they would help Democrats vote down a few of them.
And this goes back to the hypocrisy of the Left that Thomas pointed out on just a day ago. "You have ten nominees, choose two and chuck the rest even though they’re all too extreme for any of us." If they are all too extreme, then why allow a single one of them a vote? Circular reasoning must be a trademark of Reid because his excuse for this absurd compromise is full of holes.
After Mr. Reid referred in a speech on the floor to a "confidential report from the F.B.I." on a certain nominee, Republicans accused him of "hitting below the belt," as Senator George Allen, Republican of Virginia, put it in a press conference Friday. He called on Mr. Reid to apologize, just as Mr. Reid had for calling the president "a loser" a few days before.
On Friday night, the Justice Department sent a letter to Mr. Reid, Dr. Frist and other senators expressing concerns about his disclosure of the F.B.I. report. Jim Manley, a spokesman for Mr. Reid, called the letter a "ridiculous partisan attack," noting that the existence of the report had been public for nearly a year.
If I were in the Justice Department I would be concerned over Reid’s admission, too. I wrote on this when the news broke, and I was livid. Many people agree with me that there should be an ethics investigation into this incident, and at the least, Reid should be censured. The nominee has no idea what is in that report, and Reid had no business sticking his nose in that file.
Former Senator Tom Daschle, the previous Democratic leader, said, "I think Senator Frist is under extraordinary pressure from the more conservative elements within his caucus and his base and I think he has concluded, erroneously in my judgment, that he has no choice."
Does anyone really care what this literal loser has to say on this issue. He was the primary reason that these justices could not get their appropriate votes. Mr. Obstruction practically threw fits anytime a nominee that matched the caliber of these ten came onto the floor of the Senate. Frist is under pressure from his base to put the rules back the way they were. His judgment is not in error at all; Frist has no choice unless he would like to see these ten be filibustered like before. These people deserve a vote, and Daschle, Reid, and the like do not seem to understand this.
Meanwhile, the WaPo decided to jump on this today, and had virtually the same story that the Times ran, but they included a little something else.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/13/AR2005051301431.html
One potential agreement would guarantee that two of the nominees would be confirmed and the other five would be granted votes with no assurance of the outcome. The handling of the other five nominees remains the main sticking point between the GOP and Democratic leaders.
Democrats are insisting that in exchange for clearing the way for two of the judges to be confirmed, Frist would have to promise not to seek to change the filibuster rule on judicial nominees through 2006. Under the negotiations, Republicans could choose which two nominees would be cleared.
In a related negotiation, both leaders are monitoring an effort led by two moderate senators, Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), to amass five other Democrats and five other Republicans who would assure that the two nominees are approved. Nelson, McCain and the 10 other senators are participating in ongoing talks, people on both sides of the negotiations said.
This is not a deal. It is political suicide for the GOP in the Senate. And this is one more nail in the coffin of John McCain. This SOB needs to shut up and go play in the corner with the children while the adults hammer this out. Frist’s compromise would be fine with BOTH of us (though my other half stands on the side of "no compromise"). But this compromise that is being offered by Reid, and perpetuated by McCain is just more trouble, and it will all be on the GOP.
If that is the only option left on the table, then it is time for Frist to pull the trigger on the Constitutional Option. And it will only become "nuclear" if the Democrats throw a tantrum, and shut down the Senate.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 1:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home