Monday, April 18, 2005
Slow Sunday On The Filibuster
First there is this from the Guardian.
One Republican who has been undecided on the rule change, Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, said Sunday he is leaning toward supporting revives filibuster rules `"when push comes to shove."I am really very glad to see that Dick remembered his party is in the majority now. I guess almost 20 years of minority service and failed presidential aspirations have confused him some. You know what's really sad -- I'd have worked hard for him for president back when Dole ran...
``I would not take a stand against my party's view that we should have up-or-down votes on judges and that this is a part of the filibuster thing that really needs to be settled and set aside," Lugar told "Fox News Sunday."
Then there is this from a site called Civilrights.org.
At a rally on the steps of the Supreme Court last week, Senator Reid accepted more than 1 million petitions from Americans across the country who have asked senators to stand up against the nuclear option and protect our system of checks and balances. The nuclear option would change Senate rules that have been in place for more than 200 years and would deny senators from the minority party the ability to filibuster unqualified, out-of-the-mainstream judicial nominees.Sometimes one has to laugh. The filibuster is the greatest enemy civil rights have had in the post reconstruction period of American history. It took decades to overcome. If there was a natural ally for the Republicans in this it should be civil rights activists. Don't you love it when movements don't know their own history.
THE ALLIANCE CONTINUES TO ROLL ON THE ISSUE
Hedgehog Blog was the first up with today's comments on the issue. Commenting on a LATimes piece from today's paper, and has updated as the day has progressed..
Turley suggests a compromise, whereby the Democrats allow those nine nominees to get a vote, and the president withdraws the remaining three. I don't know why all twelve should not get a vote, but it will be interesting to see if this idea gets any traction.That sounds like a "splitting the baby" (biblical reference...) compromise to me, the idea seems reasonable, but the reason for the dispute is forgotten in the compromise.
Okie On The Lam adds his two cents on the LATimes piece as well.
While not an Alliance member., the guy we most wish was, Hugh Hewitt, links to this article in his morning post.
The conservative group's president, Tony Perkins, "stepped over the line," Mr. Schumer said. "He said it's people of faith versus Democrats."This is so blatant attempt to silence the opposition that it cannot be construed as anything else but bigotry. Who said anything about one faith determining our politics anyway? All we want is an actual political vote...
"That is so un-American. The founding fathers put down their plows and took up muskets to combat views like that - that one faith or one view of faith should determine what our politics should be," Mr. Schumer said on the ABC News program "This Week."
Is the NRSC attempting to distance themselves from "the wobblies". It is obvious the committee is feeling the pressure, they have set up this site with a video on the filibuster. (HT: Laura Ingraham) The video is great, hope it's running on TV -- in the states of the wobblies especially. But I got to say, I think the committee has more direct ways to exersize influence on this less than completely loyal bunch and if the committee wants my donation any time soon (I turned them down three times last week when they called) they better use it.
Sheep's Crib cracks me up woith his contribution to busting the filibuster today.
My high school American history and social studies teachers, as well as my college poli-sci and American government professors, must be twisting on their quilted satin linings knowing they didn't teach that doctrine correctly ... at least according to Chappaquiddick Ted!How right can you be, according to Ted, whole hosts of us were indeed poorly educated.
Holy Coast picks up Mort Kondrake's suggestion in today's Real Clear Politics that both sides agree to an actual extended debate.
I like Mort, but I think he's missing the real issue here. The fact is the Dems are not interested in debating the real merits of the nominees. Why? Because that's a debate they will lose.Ain't that the truth. If they were interested in actual debate, they'd have tried that before exersizing the filibuster.