 Bill Frist is expected to launch the Nuclear Option today, according to the Denver Post [May 18, 2005, "Senators set for battle on judicial nominees"]. From the article, "He (Frist) would not say when he would trigger the vote, but he promised to allow debate on Owen at length, which probably would put off a showdown until next week. Centrists of both parties strove Tuesday to come up with a compromise. Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., led Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Ken Salazar, D- Colo., and others in the bargaining. The Senate has approved 208 of the 218 appointments Bush has made to the federal courts. Under the terms of a potential compromise, the Democrats would agree to stop filibustering all but a handful of Bush's nominees, and the Republicans would swear off the nuclear option."
The Denver Post editorial staff is urging both sides to compromise [May 18, 2005, "Let the cooler heads prevail"]. They write, "Filibustering is not the best way to deal with personnel matters. Americans instinctively expect lawmakers to engage in fair debate and a conclusive vote. Nonetheless, over the years, the filibuster has been one of the few tools of protection against majority party domination, and that too has suited the public. Thus the elements remain, even now, for a sensible compromise."
Blogs for Bush: "The confrontation could start today with a move to bring nominees Brown and Owen up for a vote. I have a message for GOP Senators: You're being watched very carefully by the rank and file GOP. There is no sense or justice in the Democratic position and anything which allows them to retain the ability to hold a veto over judicial nominations will be rejected, at the polls, by the GOP."
Coyote Gulch would remind Mr. Noonan (from Blogs for Bush) that the rank and file of the Republican party is not necessarily in lockstep with regard to this issue. This is exactly the type of power politics that is driving moderates to oppose the leadership.
Washington Post: "Republicans hold 55 of the seats in the chamber, and until now they have needed 60 votes to end debate and force a vote. But Republicans believe they have figured out how to use the chamber's rules so that only a simple majority -- 51 votes -- is required to force an up-or-down vote. To get there, Republicans will have to evade a requirement that they have a two-thirds vote -- 67 of 100 senators -- to change the chamber's rules. Republicans will argue that they are attempting to set a precedent, not change the Senate rules, to disallow the use of filibusters as a delaying tactic on judicial nominations. And by doing so, they say, they are returning to a more traditional concept of majority rule...Historically, Senate rules were designed to protect the interests of the minority and to slow the deliberative process. In fashioning those rules, the Senate set a much higher threshold for changes than a simple majority vote."
Thanks to the Daily Kos for the link.
Category: 2004 Presidential Transition
5:34:16 AM 
|
|
