GOP on the brink of losing on the nuclear option - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

CShine · 03-23-2005, 10:25 AM

This story coming from the hardline right-wing Washington Times, no less. When a right-wing source is printing a story about how the Republicans are losing on an issue, it doesn't exactly bode well for their future on the matter. Looks like this nuclear option thing could turn out to be no more than a lot of hot air.

Quote:

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist does not have firm support among his caucus to employ the so-called "nuclear option" for dislodging the Democratic filibusters against President Bush's judicial nominees.

Of the 55 Republicans in the chamber, at least six are undecided or adamantly opposed to the plan of using the rare parliamentary procedure to end the filibusters with a simple majority vote, rather than the 60 votes normally required.

"I am very concerned about the overuse of the filibuster," said Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican who said she remains undecided. "But I am also concerned that a rule change will further charge the partisan atmosphere to the point that we will not be able to conduct business."

Mr. Frist said in an interview with The Washington Times last month that he was "confident" he has the votes to put an end to the filibusters against seven of Mr. Bush's nominees to the federal appeals courts.

In addition to Miss Collins, three other Republicans say they are undecided but have serious reservations. They are Sens. John W. Warner of Virginia, John McCain of Arizona and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

"I have not reached a firm view on the matter," Mr. Warner said. "However, I tend to be a traditionalist, and the right of unlimited debate has been a hallmark of the Senate since its inception."

Hagel spokesman Mike Buttry said his boss "wants to see how the debate plays out."

"He is very frustrated with the treatment of the judges," Mr. Buttry said. "At the same time, he was here in the '70s, when there was a Democrat in the White House and the filibuster was a very important tool for Republicans."

Firmly opposed to the measure are Republican Sens. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, who cite concerns about protecting the minority party and avoiding a Democratic promise to halt most Senate business. Assuming that no Democrats support Mr. Frist, that brings support for the measure to just 49 senators, one shy of the number he needs.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...1608-8533r.htm

raveneye · 03-23-2005, 10:48 AM

On the other hand, the conservative Republicans are even more in favor of the anti-filibuster bill than they were before the Schiavo case, since they see the judge who ordered the tube removed as evil incarnate. If judges are going to be activists, they should be conservative activists, is the subtext of Jerry Falwell's comment:

Quote:

''Just because there is a judge somewhere in the world who would give an estranged husband like that the time of day tells you how bad the court system is,'' the Rev. Jerry Falwell said.

And "bad" essentially means judges who are not conservative Christians.

I think the Schiavo case shows quite clearly how important the courts are as a check on the arbitrary political maneuverings of Congress, and on its arrogance of power. And by extension, how important an unbiased judiciary is in maintaining the checks and balances of our system of government.

Packing the judiciary with first-tier Bush nominees (the intended consequence of the anti-filibuster bill) is not what I would call blind justice.

pan6467 · 03-23-2005, 11:55 AM

Well this and the Schiavo case among other things are becoming nuclear to the GOP itself. The party is showing itself to be power hungry, for the rich, while they raise hidden taxes and give themselves pay raises.

I saw it elsewhere on here, when 1 party has total power they self destruct.

I firmly believe that GOP rule will fast come to an end. And I think some of the desperation moves they are making shows they know it is coming also. The pendulum is swinging back to the left...... let's just hope the Dems. cease the moment.

NCB · 03-23-2005, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Well this and the Schiavo case among other things are becoming nuclear to the GOP itself. The party is showing itself to be power hungry, for the rich, while they raise hidden taxes and give themselves pay raises.

I saw it elsewhere on here, when 1 party has total power they self destruct.

I firmly believe that GOP rule will fast come to an end. And I think some of the desperation moves they are making shows they know it is coming also. The pendulum is swinging back to the left...... let's just hope the Dems. cease the moment.

Is this why you're rooting for death in the TS case?? Please tell me that you don't believe that her death will mean more Dem seats!!

pan6467 · 03-23-2005, 01:17 PM

NO>>>> AND THAT I TAKE OFFENSE TO BECAUSE THAT IS A GOP FUCKING GAME.

I don't want this Schiavo case to be a political power play and the GOP did. They chose to stand above the courts and play games so they can point fingers like you and say "SEEE DEMS WANT DEATH...." it's fucking bullshit and proves that the GOP rushed this to be able to play that game..... but it is backfiring, it's showing the people, the voters, that the GOP doesn't care about the guardians rights, doesn't care what all these courts say.... doesn't care how the voters feel.... only what the GOP deems right and therefore they want to condemn others.

NCB · 03-23-2005, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

NO>>>> AND THAT I TAKE OFFENSE TO BECAUSE THAT IS A GOP FUCKING GAME.

I don't want this Schiavo case to be a political power play and the GOP did. They chose to stand above the courts and play games so they can point fingers like you and say "SEEE DEMS WANT DEATH...." it's fucking bullshit and proves that the GOP rushed this to be able to play that game..... but it is backfiring, it's showing the people, the voters, that the GOP doesn't care about the guardians rights, doesn't care what all these courts say.... doesn't care how the voters feel.... only what the GOP deems right and therefore they want to condemn others.

1. They choose to take a stand as their Cont. powers dictate...via Article III
2. Sorry you took offense to that, but can you see why I came to that conclusion? I was shocked when I read what you wrote. But if that was not your intent, then I do apologize.

dksuddeth · 03-23-2005, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Is this why you're rooting for death in the TS case?? Please tell me that you don't believe that her death will mean more Dem seats!!

kinda lacking in class on this one. nobody WANTS her dead, alot of people just want her to be at peace with her wishes of not being sustained on life support of any type. thats off topic though for this thread.

As far as the nuclear option goes, the GOP holdouts remember their filibustering days all too well in the past. They also know what will happen if there are ever 51 dems in the senate also. They need to recognize that its not going to be worth pushing this hard for their anti-abortion agenda over 9 judges.

dksuddeth · 03-23-2005, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

1. They choose to take a stand as their Cont. powers dictate...via Article III.

I see nothing in article III that says congress/senate bodies can pass legislation for one person and one person alone.

Seaver · 03-23-2005, 02:13 PM

Quote:

This story coming from the hardline right-wing Washington Times, no less.

Washington Times is hardlined right-wing? WOW.... they've been one of the few NE'stern newspapers who haven't been found making up stories or purposely changing facts.... but they're hardlined rightwing.

magnacarta · 03-23-2005, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Washington Times is hardlined right-wing? WOW.... they've been one of the few NE'stern newspapers who haven't been found making up stories or purposely changing facts.... but they're hardlined rightwing.

I don't know what you know about the Wash. Times, but they are ALWAYS change facts. Just a few examples:

In the March 10 edition of The Washington Times, reporters Bill Sammon and Amy Fagan falsely claimed that under current law, the Social Security system will "become unable to pay any benefits as early as 2042." In fact, according to the most recent projections by the Social Security trustees, the system will be able to pay promised benefits in full until 2042, at which point it would still be able to cover 73 percent of scheduled benefits. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that the system will be able to fully pay promised benefits into 2052, at which point it would still be able to cover 78 percent of scheduled benefits.

Washington Times chief political correspondent Donald Lambro touted a misleading claim from the conservative Tax Foundation that "President Bush's tax cuts further reduced the tax burden of low- and middle-income taxpayers, and shifted the tax burden onto wealthy taxpayers." In fact, an August 2004 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study showed that Bush's tax cuts shifted the overall federal tax burden so that a larger share now falls onto the middle class, while high-income Americans now pay a smaller share.

jonjon42 · 03-23-2005, 07:03 PM

I dunno if they are "hard" right wing, but they are certainly right wing...and crazy (moonies)

anyway, I think the republicans should be worried about what will happen when they are no longer top dog in the legislature. (bound to happen eventually) this rule change could come back to haunt them for years to come. That is why I believe they won't make the rule change.

Tophat665 · 03-23-2005, 08:27 PM

What the suffering f*ck does Terri Schaivo have to do with fillibuster rule?

No, don't answer that. I don't honestly care what today's talking points are.

I am stunned, amazed, shocked, and awed that John Warner might, possibly, be reverting to the kind of sensible guy he was when I voted for him the first time I ever voted. Won't get him my vote this time, but it sure is nice to see that the brain still ticks.

Look, nuclear is apt here. Democratic senators see (in my opinion, rightly, but leave that aside) Shrub's re-nomination of judges they already blocked as a ploy to geld them. If they let them through, then they lose some of their base on the one hand, and they will find it hard to implement many of their priorities when they come back to power. If they filibuster, things are going to get ugly in the senate like hasn't been seen since the Civil War. If they do a half assed job of it, and if they don't communicate effectively what they are doing, then they will lose even more seats (possibly to the point where this won't even come up.) If the Democrats threaten to filibuster and are balked by anything other than 60 votes, then they absolutely, positivley must, as a matter of survival, filibuster every single other thing with a Republican sponsor until the rule is changed. They cannot do otherwise and retain such tatters of credibility as they have managed to hang onto thus far.

Moderate republicans - both of them - are against this asinine idea because they know it will shut the Senate down, and they know that there really are some important things that the Senate has to do. Intelligent conservative Republicans know that, one day they will lose the whip hand, either to the Democratic party, or to whatever replaces it if it disintegrates entirely. Fundamentalist Christian Conservative Republicans, on the other hand, are following a life script that hasn't really been valid for at least a millennium, and they are letting their emotions (as opposed to their religion) rule them like petulant and ill tempered children. I'm all for spankings in those cases. And then there are those who are toeing the party line as a step in developing their power who can't really be blamed for it, but surely deserve no praise either.

I am pretty sure that Rove is looking to crush the Democratic party for a generation or more with this. Evil genius indeed.

03-23-2005, 11:55 AM	#3 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Well this and the Schiavo case among other things are becoming nuclear to the GOP itself. The party is showing itself to be power hungry, for the rich, while they raise hidden taxes and give themselves pay raises. I saw it elsewhere on here, when 1 party has total power they self destruct. I firmly believe that GOP rule will fast come to an end. And I think some of the desperation moves they are making shows they know it is coming also. The pendulum is swinging back to the left...... let's just hope the Dems. cease the moment. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

03-23-2005, 01:17 PM	#5 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	NO>>>> AND THAT I TAKE OFFENSE TO BECAUSE THAT IS A GOP FUCKING GAME. I don't want this Schiavo case to be a political power play and the GOP did. They chose to stand above the courts and play games so they can point fingers like you and say "SEEE DEMS WANT DEATH...." it's fucking bullshit and proves that the GOP rushed this to be able to play that game..... but it is backfiring, it's showing the people, the voters, that the GOP doesn't care about the guardians rights, doesn't care what all these courts say.... doesn't care how the voters feel.... only what the GOP deems right and therefore they want to condemn others. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

03-23-2005, 07:03 PM	#11 (permalink)
jonjon42 Psycho Location: inside my own mind	I dunno if they are "hard" right wing, but they are certainly right wing...and crazy (moonies) anyway, I think the republicans should be worried about what will happen when they are no longer top dog in the legislature. (bound to happen eventually) this rule change could come back to haunt them for years to come. That is why I believe they won't make the rule change. __________________ A damn dirty hippie without the dirty part....

03-23-2005, 08:27 PM	#12 (permalink)
Tophat665 Minion of the scaléd ones Location: Northeast Jesusland	What the suffering f*ck does Terri Schaivo have to do with fillibuster rule? No, don't answer that. I don't honestly care what today's talking points are. I am stunned, amazed, shocked, and awed that John Warner might, possibly, be reverting to the kind of sensible guy he was when I voted for him the first time I ever voted. Won't get him my vote this time, but it sure is nice to see that the brain still ticks. Look, nuclear is apt here. Democratic senators see (in my opinion, rightly, but leave that aside) Shrub's re-nomination of judges they already blocked as a ploy to geld them. If they let them through, then they lose some of their base on the one hand, and they will find it hard to implement many of their priorities when they come back to power. If they filibuster, things are going to get ugly in the senate like hasn't been seen since the Civil War. If they do a half assed job of it, and if they don't communicate effectively what they are doing, then they will lose even more seats (possibly to the point where this won't even come up.) If the Democrats threaten to filibuster and are balked by anything other than 60 votes, then they absolutely, positivley must, as a matter of survival, filibuster every single other thing with a Republican sponsor until the rule is changed. They cannot do otherwise and retain such tatters of credibility as they have managed to hang onto thus far. Moderate republicans - both of them - are against this asinine idea because they know it will shut the Senate down, and they know that there really are some important things that the Senate has to do. Intelligent conservative Republicans know that, one day they will lose the whip hand, either to the Democratic party, or to whatever replaces it if it disintegrates entirely. Fundamentalist Christian Conservative Republicans, on the other hand, are following a life script that hasn't really been valid for at least a millennium, and they are letting their emotions (as opposed to their religion) rule them like petulant and ill tempered children. I'm all for spankings in those cases. And then there are those who are toeing the party line as a step in developing their power who can't really be blamed for it, but surely deserve no praise either. I am pretty sure that Rove is looking to crush the Democratic party for a generation or more with this. Evil genius indeed. __________________ Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.