Frist Has a Good Idea

[Guest MikeSC]

April 28th, 2005 - Throughout the judicial obstruction debate, emotions have run high on both sides. This should remind all of us, once again, of the need to return civility to our nation’s capital.

 

The American people want their elected leaders to work together to find solutions. To them -- doing what’s Republican or Democrat matters far less than doing what’s right for our country.

 

Let me briefly discuss how we got here.

 

Never in 214 years -- never in the history of the Senate -- had a judicial nominee with majority support been denied an up-or-down vote…until two years ago.

 

In the last Congress, the President submitted 34 appeals court nominees to the Senate. A minority of senators denied ten of those nominees -- and threatened to deny another six -- up-or-down votes.

 

They wouldn’t allow votes, because they knew the nominees would be confirmed and become judges. The nominees had the support of a majority of senators.

 

Now, in this new Congress, the same minority says it will continue to obstruct votes on judges. And, even worse, if they don’t get their way, they threaten to shut down the Senate and obstruct government itself.

 

Throughout this debate, we have held firm to a simple principle -- judicial nominees deserve up-or-down votes. Vote for them. Vote against them. But give them the courtesy of a vote.

 

Yet judicial nominees have not been given that courtesy. They’ve gone 2, 3, even 4 years without a vote. Now 46 seats on the federal bench are vacant -- as case after case and appeal after appeal stack up.

 

One nominee -- Priscilla Owen -- has served 10 years as a justice on the Texas Supreme court. She won reelection with 84% of the vote in Texas, yet she can’t get the courtesy of a vote to be confirmed by the Senate.

 

Judicial nominees are being denied. Justice is being denied. The solution is simple -- allow Senators to do their jobs and vote.

 

In the spirit of civility and with sincere hope for a solution, I make an offer.

 

This offer will ensure up or down votes on judicial nominees after fair, open, and, some might say, exhaustive debate. It’s a compromise that holds to constitutional principles.

 

First, never in the history of the Senate had a judicial nominee with majority support been denied an up-or-down vote until two years ago. However, it was not unprecedented either for Republicans or Democrats to block judicial nominees in committee.

 

Whether on the floor or in committee, judicial obstruction is judicial obstruction. It’s time for judicial obstruction to end no matter which party controls the White House or the Senate.

 

The judiciary committee will continue to play its essential oversight and investigative roles in the confirmation process. But the committee -- whether controlled by Republicans or Democrats -- will no longer be used to obstruct judicial nominees.

 

Second, fair and open debate is a hallmark of the Senate. Democrats have expressed their desire for more time to debate judicial nominees. I respect that request and honor it.

 

When a judicial nominee comes to the floor, we will set aside up to 100 hours to debate that nomination. Then the Senate as a whole will speak with an up-or-down vote.

 

The Senate operated this way before we began to broadcast debates on television in 1986. This would provide more than enough time for every Senator to speak on a nominee while guaranteeing that nominee the courtesy of a vote.

 

Third, these proposals will apply only to appeals court and Supreme Court nominees. Judges who serve on these courts have the awesome responsibility of interpreting the Constitution.

 

So far, only up-or-down votes on appeals court nominees have been denied. I sincerely hope the Senate minority does not intend to escalate its judicial obstruction to potential Supreme Court nominees.

 

That would be a terrible blow to constitutional principles and to political civility in America. I hope my offer will make it unnecessary for the minority to further escalate its judicial obstruction.

 

Fourth, the minority of senators who have denied votes on judicial nominees are concerned that their ability to block bills will be curbed. As Majority Leader, I guarantee that power will be protected.

 

The filibuster -- as it existed before its unprecedented use on judicial nominees in the last Congress -- will remain unchanged.

 

Senator Reid and I have been talking almost every day on this issue. And I’m hopeful he’ll accept my offer as a solution. It may not be a perfect proposal for either side, but it’s the right proposal for America.

 

For 70% of the 20th Century, the same party controlled the White House and the Senate. Yet no minority ever denied a judicial nominee with majority support an up-or-down vote until the last Congress.

 

These minorities showed self-restraint. They treated judicial nominees with fairness. And they respected the Senate’s role in the appointments process -- as designed by the Framers of the Constitution.

 

Resolving the judicial obstruction debate, for me, isn’t about politics. This is about constitutional principles. It’s about fairness to nominees. It’s about Senators doing their duty and doing what’s right for our country.

 

Arbitrarily voting on just a few judicial nominees, as some have proposed, will fail to restore the Senate’s 214 year practice of up-or-down votes for all judicial nominees that come to the floor.

 

Senators have a duty to vote up-or-down on judicial nominees -- confirm them or deny them -- but give them all the courtesy of a vote.

http://frist.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseActi...l&Speech_id=191

So, Frist is offering an up-or-down vote on all nominees. No more bottling them up in committee and no more filibusters on the floor.

 

I think the man has been an atrocious Majority Leader --- but this offer is some inspired genius.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I'm going to smile when the tables turn someday (and let's face it, we can't have a Republican-dominated government FOREVER no matter how badly the Dems are doing) and all these majority wins re-writes of the rules are thrown in their face.

[Guest MikeSC]

Frist is proposing solutions which seem eminently fair.

 

Give candidates up and down votes.

 

The EXACT thing the Dems said they have always wanted.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Good luck, gentlemen, and may whoever has the most idealogues win!

[Guest MikeSC]

Good luck, gentlemen, and may whoever has the most idealogues win!

Because the concept of majority rules is such a nightmare.

 

Let's stick with what the minority wants.

-=Mike

...Who wants to see how the Dems would explain opposing this...

[Vyce 0]

Good luck, gentlemen, and may whoever has the most idealogues win!

Because the concept of majority rules is such a nightmare.

 

Let's stick with what the minority wants.

-=Mike

...Who wants to see how the Dems would explain opposing this...

They're already opposing it.

[Guest MikeSC]

I'm not surprised. I just want to hear their justification for opposing the precise thing they requested back in 1999 and 2000.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Let me totally blow everyone's mind here for a second and admit something:

 

I agree with Mike on this one.

 

The US Senate collectively represents the people of all 50 states. Senators are directly elected by the people. If the Democrats allow the up or down vote to happen, then they can turn how crappy these judges may or may not be into a 2006 issue. In the mean time, they just look like a bunch of sore losers.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Let me totally blow everyone's mind here for a second and admit something:

 

I agree with Mike on this one.

 

The US Senate collectively represents the people of all 50 states. Senators are directly elected by the people. If the Democrats allow the up or down vote to happen, then they can turn how crappy these judges may or may not be into a 2006 issue. In the mean time, they just look like a bunch of sore losers.

But the polls are favoring the Democrats on this issue.

[SuperJerk 0]

I'd be interested in seeing a source on that.

[Guest MikeSC]

Let me totally blow everyone's mind here for a second and admit something:

 

I agree with Mike on this one.

 

The US Senate collectively represents the people of all 50 states.  Senators are directly elected by the people.  If the Democrats allow the up or down vote to happen, then they can turn how crappy these judges may or may not be into a 2006 issue.  In the mean time, they just look like a bunch of sore losers.

But the polls are favoring the Democrats on this issue.

I'd LOVE to see a source for this one.

 

Because there is one REALLY shaky poll indicating this --- and that poll fails to even mention he word "filibuster" once in any of the questions.

-=Mike

[The Czech Republic 0]

Yeah. We need more filibusters. We need more pointless bullshit being spoken in the U.S. Senate. Yay Democrats.

 

If Ted Kennedy can't grind the system to a halt by slurring his way through the Greater Baltimore-Washington Yellow Pages, this ain't no fuckin' democracy that I wanna live in.

[Ted the Poster 0]

I'm really rusty on my history, but wasn't a filibuster used to help pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Because the concept of majority rules is such a nightmare.

 

Let's stick with what the minority wants.

      -=Mike

I never said that, but the minority holding some power does help keep things balanced.

 

Frist and Reid came to an agreement that will have two nominees cleared. I think obviously if both sides are able to negotiate a compromise, it's working.

 

I'm really rusty on my history, but wasn't a filibuster used to help pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

No, but good ol' Strom Thurmond sure filibustered his hardest to delay the vote.

 

That's why comments like Czech's "We need more pointless bullshit being spoken in the U.S. Senate. Yay Democrats." like this is something new will never stop amusing me.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I'd be interested in seeing a source on that.

I'm guessing he means this.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I'm really rusty on my history, but wasn't a filibuster used to help pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

No, but good ol' Strom Thurmond sure filibustered his hardest to delay the vote.

 

That's why comments like Czech's "We need more pointless bullshit being spoken in the U.S. Senate. Yay Democrats." like this is something new will never stop amusing me.

'64, was Thurmond even a Republican by then?

 

 

Guess we're equal, since I'm still chuckling over how you were waxing poetic about an ideal Communist state.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

You're only chuckling because you refused to accept that I was making a minor point about good intentions and instead warped it into me being a Marxist.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

You know what's funny about this whole debate. The Dems are whining about checks and balances, yet perhaps if they could manage a majority in one of the branches of Congress or have someone in the White House it wouldn't be so dang hard to stop what the waskly wepublicans are doing.

 

But yet the Democrat Party isn't out of touch. No sir-e.

 

Oh, and Frist will bend over like he always does regarding this, so it's not even worth talking about...

[SuperJerk 0]

I'm really rusty on my history, but wasn't a filibuster used to help pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

No, but good ol' Strom Thurmond sure filibustered his hardest to delay the vote.

 

That's why comments like Czech's "We need more pointless bullshit being spoken in the U.S. Senate. Yay Democrats." like this is something new will never stop amusing me.

'64, was Thurmond even a Republican by then?

 

 

Guess we're equal, since I'm still chuckling over how you were waxing poetic about an ideal Communist state.

Strom joined the Republicans in September of 1964 in protest of the Democrats' support of the 1964 Civil Right Acts.

 

Its not like the guy's positions changed when he switched parties.

[Guest MikeSC]

I'm really rusty on my history, but wasn't a filibuster used to help pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

No, but good ol' Strom Thurmond sure filibustered his hardest to delay the vote.

 

That's why comments like Czech's "We need more pointless bullshit being spoken in the U.S. Senate. Yay Democrats." like this is something new will never stop amusing me.

Funny, you don't mention somebody who was filibustering that bill.

 

You know, the "moral voice" of the Dems, Robert Byrd.

-=Mike

[Guest Cerebus]

Re: Robert Byrd

 

Once, Dennis Leary was doing a rant on cocaine and said "If Hitler had coke there would be Jews in the bathroom going, 'I know you didn't do it. *snoooooort* I like your mustache! *snoooort* Fucking Himmler! *snoooooort*'"

 

Just replace Jews with Moveon, Hitler with Robert Byrd, and coke with criticizing Bush.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Funny, you don't mention somebody who was filibustering that bill ... You know, the "moral voice" of the Dems, Robert Byrd.

RJ probably didn't see him in the background in that textbook picture he uses to educate the youths of America due to the white sheet Robbie B. had over his head. I know I'm lying -- no way Byrd would be shown in a negative light in a government school textbook.

 

-=kkk, who wasn't going to do a "Look at all the Dems that did the same thing as Strom lol1964!" comparison, but couldn't pass up the KKK reference...

[genius33 0]

frist reminds me of hitler