Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Talks to Head Off Filibuster Showdown Fail
Senators Trying to Head Off a Showdown Over Judicial Filibusters Fail to Work Out a Deal
By JESSE J. HOLLAND Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press
May. 18, 2005 - More than a dozen senators trying to head off a showdown over judicial filibusters failed to work out a deal Wednesday to confirm some of President Bush's controversial judicial appointments while rejecting others.
The Senate's party leaders, Republican Bill Frist of Tennessee and Democrat Harry Reid of Nevada, opened formal debate on Texas jurist Priscilla Owen the nominee that will test the Democrats' ability to continue blocking judges with filibusters.
With a decision on whether to allow filibusters looming early next week, centrist lawmakers met in various offices around the Capitol complex in Sen. John Warner's office at one point, Republican Mike DeWine's office at another seeking a compromise that would avert a politically explosive confrontation.
Democratic Sen. Ken Salazar of Colorado attended at least 13 private meetings over the previous 24 hours with senators trying to reach a deal, a spokesman said.
"It's kind of like exams. If you have a date-certain, people tend to react. So in that sense, this has been a good thing," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., one of the negotiators.
The senators seen going in and out of those sessions during the day included Republicans Graham, DeWine, Warner, John McCain of Arizona, Susan Collins of Maine, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Democrats Salazar, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.
Congressional aides said late Wednesday the negotiators failed to reach agreement but would resume their talks Thursday. The aides spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions are being held behind closed doors.
One of the deals being worked on would have the Senate confirming Owen, California judge Janice Rogers Brown and former Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, with Idaho lawyer William Myers's nomination scuttled. As part of that deal, two Michigan nominees, David McKeague and Richard Griffin, would be confirmed, while a third nominee Henry Saad would be jettisoned.
A fourth Michigan judge, Susan Neilson, also would be confirmed. She has not been filibustered by Democrats in the past.
Senators are still negotiating that part of the deal and it is subject to change, aides said.
The Republicans working on that deal are contradicting Frist, R-Tenn., who has insisted that all of the White House's nominees get confirmed. He picked up an additional senator on his side Wednesday, Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore.
Smith said he had decided over the weekend that he would vote to change Senate rules that let members block nominees by threatening to filibuster. "I think to do otherwise has a chilling effect not only on the meaning of elections, but as to the intellectual vigor of the judicial branch of the government," Smith said.
But Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said his party would fight to retain what power it still had in a Washington run by a Republican president and GOP houses of Congress.
"If Republicans roll back our rights in this chamber, there will be no check on their power," said Reid. "The radical right wing will be free to pursue any agenda they want. And not just on judges. Their power will be unchecked on Supreme Court nominees, the president's nominees in general and legislation like Social Security privatization."
Frist, frustrated by the Democrats' success in blocking Bush nominees, has threatened to call a vote on banning judicial filibusters. If such a move were to succeed, it would give the GOP full control over which nominees could be confirmed for lifetime judgeships since the party controls the White House and has a 55-44-1 majority in the Senate.
The filibuster, a parliamentary stalling device used by legislative minorities, can be overcome only by a majority of 60 votes or more in the 100-member Senate.
If majority Republicans opt to change the rules to disallow filibusters of judicial nominees a change labeled the "nuclear option" parliamentary warfare between Democrats and Republicans could escalate and stall Bush's legislative agenda.
Democrats already have prevented final votes on 10 of Bush's first-term appeals court nominees, and have threatened to do the same this year to seven the president has renominated, including Owen and Brown. The Senate has approved 208 Bush judicial nominees, including 35 appeals court judges.
Just a majority of senators present are needed to approve a nominee once a vote is called in the Senate, and only 50 if the vice president, who breaks ties, votes in favor of a nominee.
Frist also could prevail with 50 votes supporting his move to rule filibusters out of order when used to block a confirmation vote because the Republicans have Vice President Dick Cheney to break a tie.
Neither side appears certain it has enough votes to prevail if that issue is put to a test.
theim said:The only reason its a mistake is because the public in general are not intuned enoguh to realize this is perfectly legal and constitutional. Did anyone see Senator Schumer earlier? I didn't realize we fought a revolution for the right not to vote.
Kathianne said:do you have a link?
theim said:The only reason its a mistake is because the public in general are not intuned enoguh to realize this is perfectly legal and constitutional. Did anyone see Senator Schumer earlier? I didn't realize we fought a revolution for the right not to vote.
SmarterThanYou said:this is a bad move, one that the republicans will sorely regret in another 10 to 15 years when it works against them. This also does nothing more than turn the senate into a judicial rubber stamp. Think about hillary in 08 with 50 demo votes.....scary?
never say never, but you're supposed to think this through as a hypothetical anyway. Or is that too nitemarish to envision so you'll just deny the possibility?gop_jeff said:There's no way the GOP loses 5 Senate Seats over the next 4 years.
SmarterThanYou said:never say never, but you're supposed to think this through as a hypothetical anyway. Or is that too nitemarish to envision so you'll just deny the possibility?
SmarterThanYou said:never say never, but you're supposed to think this through as a hypothetical anyway. Or is that too nitemarish to envision so you'll just deny the possibility?
gop_jeff said:Realistically, Hillary won't get elected Prez, but even if she did, ther GOP would not lose their Senate majority.
But let's just say that, sometime in the future, a liberal President gets a friendly Senate to confirm all his/her judicial nominees, who are knee-jerk liberals. We'd be in about the same situation then as we are today - with a majority of liberal activist judges. The reason the Dems are so spun up on this issue is because they currently control the judiciary (through the appointment of liberal activist judges) and they don't want Bush or the GOP to ruin that for them.
a majority of liberal activist judges? me thinks you are so incorrect.gop_jeff said:Realistically, Hillary won't get elected Prez, but even if she did, ther GOP would not lose their Senate majority.
But let's just say that, sometime in the future, a liberal President gets a friendly Senate to confirm all his/her judicial nominees, who are knee-jerk liberals. We'd be in about the same situation then as we are today - with a majority of liberal activist judges. The reason the Dems are so spun up on this issue is because they currently control the judiciary (through the appointment of liberal activist judges) and they don't want Bush or the GOP to ruin that for them.
SmarterThanYou said:a majority of liberal activist judges? me thinks you are so incorrect.
7 of the 11 US Circuit Court of Appeals have majorities appointed by republican presidents
Justices O' Connor and Rehnquist were considered "perfectly conservative" not more than 20 years ago by the GOP and now those 2 are considered almost too liberal
What's even more telling is only 2,TWO, were named by a Dem president.... Ginsberg and Breyer. The rest were all placed by true conservative presidents
Oh there are, but realistically we need to think of the political environment where the judges were put forward for confirmation. At the time there was the necessity of "compromise" for those judges. Now that there is a more friendly Senate the need to compromise is limited, this is why the Dems are flexing their powers under the rules currently affirmed by the Senate.so i guess there truly ARE conservative judicial activists.
that doesn't wash at all. Wouldn't have been nominated if the president didn't want them there.no1tovote4 said:And affirmed by opposition party controlled Senate thus making it important to "compromise" which often led to the Senate actually getting the candidate they wanted over the nominee the President wanted.
more friendly senate to whom? limit the compromise? why? If there were 66 republican senators, i could see your reasoning, but not with just 55.no1tovote4 said:Oh there are, but realistically we need to think of the political environment where the judges were put forward for confirmation. At the time there was the necessity of "compromise" for those judges. Now that there is a more friendly Senate the need to compromise is limited, this is why the Dems are flexing their powers under the rules currently affirmed by the Senate.
no1tovote4 said:this is why the Dems are flexing their powers under the rules currently affirmed by the Senate.
SmarterThanYou said:that doesn't wash at all. Wouldn't have been nominated if the president didn't want them there.
more friendly senate to whom? limit the compromise? why? If there were 66 republican senators, i could see your reasoning, but not with just 55.
deaddude said:Which they are perfectly within their rights to do.
deaddude said:What I don't understand is why filibustering would be a bad thing. Comprimise is good. This filibuster thing alows a minority to retain the ability to force comprimise even if the opposing party controls both the legislative and executive branches.
