Ummm, the nuclear option bugs me for the same reason it bugs McCain. Any power you give to the GOP will be given to the Dems.

Of course, as they are opposed to it, I'm sure they will repeal it the first chance they get a majority /sarcasm.

That's pussy-talk. Push your advantage when you have it. You may never have it again.

Divided government is likely, though not guaranteed, to be the norm in the future. This is a golden moment and we are fools if we do not seize it.

About frickin' time.

We have to weigh the benefits and the costs here. There are costs to eliminating this rule. It could bite us in the patootie in a Hillary administration. And if we ever lose control of Congress, the retribution would be terrible and we'll wish we had this rule to put the brakes on their appointees.

But there are huge costs to doing nothing. Bush isn't getting conservative judges through. And the courts are getting ever more liberal and radical despite our having control of the Senate.

Rehnquist will retire soon. Before he does, there needs to be a precedent set that Bush will be able to pick the best man for the job to replace him and know he'll get a timely up-or-down vote in the Senate. Let's have this fight now. If the liberals realize they can't keep the courts a left-wing utopia, maybe they'll come around to embracing checks-and-balances instead of judicial imperialism.

See-Dubya reflects my sentiments exactly.

My only other point would be that right now, the GOP is creating a fair amount of backlash in the moderate camps that may well deliver a Dem majority in the next elections. Handing more power to a majority isn't a good idea when they are reducing that majority.

However, the courts have been a liberal haven with unchecked power for too long, and it seems the dems are unwilling to compromise on this.

Here's the reality of it: Republican senators are wimps. They let Ginsberg sail through. And because Ivy law school faculties and legal "mainstream" groups are far to the left of sane (though to the right of liberal arts faculties), Democratic presidents and cowardly Repub senators will have endless cover for screwing us over. Most of the public won't even know it'll have happened.

We, on the other hand, have nothing but the right on our side. And a 50+ vote majority that's likely to increase in 2006. Pass up this chance for Bush to inject some spine into the right side of the judge issue? Crazy talk.

DelphiGuy: We will pad our Congressional majorities in 2006. Bet on it.

You didn't think Kerry's early-summer lead was real, did you? Wait for the pushback.

does the GOP even need this filibuster rule??
in my memory they never pulled this crap, even during their long years in the minority dungeons of Congress.
the GOP's as minority still voted up or down, fair and square--and usually gave whichever president his due in terms of letting his judges through

this filibuster BS is a contrivance of the abortion lobby, w/ no previous precendent or justification, or constitutional authority that i can see.

its ''advise and consent'' not filibuster and refuse to consent.

Btw, somewhat OT: Could everyone's favorite Kleagle be in trouble? That would be the most satisfying Senatorial takedown since, well, ever.

(via Rantburg)

West Virginia, of course, went red by 13%.

Someone, I'm curious where you get that. I'm thinking we've hit high tide in Congressional representation for a while...I don't expect a D majority or anything, but I don't expect we'll keep this balance for long...

My understanding is that Republicans made limited use of the filibuster because when they did the Democrats would threaten to take it away. I think Byrd actually nuked the filibuster on several occasions when he was majority leader.

Mike Barone's last column laid out a plausible explanation for the GOP continuing to pick up seats in congress in the near term. As far as the filibuster issue is concerned, it was meant to be a once in a while way of protesting certain legislation or appointments. It 's been abused, and it needs to be fixed, the sooner the better. The Dems are trying to filibuster every piece of major legislation in the Senate, and these circuit court filibusters have become beyond ridiculous, since almost none of these nominees are particularly unusual from an ideological standpoint.

This is a very bad idea. The filibuster has been used by the Republican Party numerous times in defense of the 2nd Amendment.

If the Republican Party gets rid of this, it pretty much paves the way for increased gun regulation.

Why are some people so ignorant of what we're talking about here? When a president gets elected, unless the nominee is proven corrupt, incompetent, or insane, he gets the job. It's called DEMOCRACY. The filibuster is a parlimentary procedure to force compromise and prevent abuse (read: overreaching) by a majority in legislation. After you get concessions, you still have to count to 50%+1.

The nomination process is constitutionally mandated - ADVISE, then CONSENT. IOW, once the nomination is made, it's just "Yes" or "No" and there is no compromising.

The filibuster has never been widely used against nominations, and never against the judiciary. And when it HAS been used, it's been WRONG.

That all said, I see no "news" here. We've been hearing "...all but decided to push..." for TWO DAMN YEARS. When someone reports Frist "ripped out Kennedy's eyeballs, and pissed on his brain, that lardass waste of a human life," then I'll get excited. Until then: just more effin' bullshit.

Davo, that is the dumbest excuse I've ever heard in my life.

To prevent further erosion of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution through legislation, let's allow the Democrats in the Senate to use an extra-Constitutional filibuster so they can prevent strict constructionists from getting on the bench where they could have protected the 2nd Amendment.

You're such a fucking brain surgeon.

1) I say go for it. We need to get judges that will rule on the constitution and the law and not on politics, feelings, and foreign laws. We've compromised too much already, are in the "danger zone" and will still be paying the price for decades even if we turn the trend

2) The democrats have shown they have no conscience or restraint in trying to get what they want. They're going to play dirty no matter what we do. They will be attacking Republicans for something else if not this.

3) We're (again) failing at the PR war. It's not the Republicans who are "going nuclear" it is the democrats who have been doing so and we are taking reasonable necessary steps to respond to their abuse of procedure.

Most people don't even understand what a filibuster is and won't understand it when the Democrats try to explain it cause they never explain shit right.

Advantage, 2006/2008: Republicans.

The minority party loses a tool to keep checks in balances in place.

Disadvantage: Democracy

How many judges are we talking about anyway?

Y'know, I might not even mind letting the Dems keep the damn thing if they'd just actually fucking do it. Why the hell aren't we calling their bluff? Let's see Teddy K go on for 24 hours like Jimmy Stewart. We can ask questions whenever he mentions rivers, bridges, or alcohol. Let's give John Kerry a podium and have him explain all the plans he claimed he had last year. No time limit, John! No light, no buzzer, no nothing. Y'all talk as long as you want. Hey, Reid! Haven't you been bitching about Republican domination of media exposure in your own special world? How about we give you as much as you can handle on C-SPAN2, plus headlines in the NY Times?

But no. We just let them threaten a hypothetical filibuster and we back down. What kind of weak-ass shit is that?

Two points:

1. Frist knows that if the tables were turned, the Republicans as in the past would be far less likely to be successful in filibustering liberal judges. (I.e. R's are more likely to be pussies)

2. The proposed change only affects (judicial) nominations. Legislation can be filibustered as normal.

a bonus point:

The House many, many, many years ago had a filibuster. They gave it up, and the Nation has survived ever since.

Nick, I've never thought that Republicans were pussies. On the contrary, they appear to me to be the party of strength. Does anyone know how many judges we're talking about?

There is only one thing to do: press every advantage, strive for total victory.

What is best in life? To crush your enemies. To see them driven before you. And to hear the lamentations of their women.
- Conan

We can settle for nothing less than total victory.
- Dick Cheney

You know, these milquetoasts in the Senate have pulled this passive-aggressive bullshit with me for about the last time.

They have the freaking Constitution. It's high time they slapped a copy of it down on the table, looked the American people in the eye and said "This is the law of the land, not the fantasies of Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi or a former member of the Klan. We're going to follow this come hell or high water". Then they ought to stick out their chins and dare the Democrats to stop them, warning them that if they do, Senators will go to the mattresses to make sure that we all remember what the words "advise" and "consent" mean.

Anything less than that and I call them all pussies of the worst, most puling order.

We're talking about 10 judges.

Now, don't let the Dems convince you that's a small number. They love to say they've confirmed over 200 judges, but that's like saying you've sold over 200 pieces of meat - are you McDonald's or Sizzler? The 10 judges filibustered are 10 of only 34 nominees to the Federal Courts of Appeal, the highest courts under the Supreme Court. That's almost 1/3 of the judges he's asked for to fill vacancies on the Appeals level, and those are the people (like the insane 9th Circus) who do all the judicial activism we like to rant about. Those 10 judges could be a dramatic shift in law.

"Does anyone know how many judges we're talking about?"

About a dozen or so, I believe.

The number is entirely irrelevant. One filibustered nomination is too many. Frist and company let the Dems get away with doing something in the last term that had never been done in the history of the Senate - filibustering a judicial nomination - and they'd better make damned sure it doesn't happen again.

About freakin' time. Pragmatically, it's hard to see how this issue can lose. Either Frist breaks the filibuster, in which case we start getting some decent judges, or he fails, in which case the Dems' obstructionism is so nakedly obvious that they lose even more seats in 2006.

And I don't buy the argument that ending the filibuster on nominations will come back to bite the Republicans in the ass. If this is a rotten tactic for the Dems to use as an opposition party--and it is--then it would be equally rotten for the Republicans to use it. A lot of the talk on this point resembles the Democratic chatter about an "exit strategy" in Iraq. Planning for future defeats is a good way to ensure defeat.

A lot of the talk on this point resembles the Democratic chatter about an "exit strategy" in Iraq. Planning for future defeats is a good way to ensure defeat.

Exactly. I just wrote a long letter to my senator, Olympia Snowe from Maine. She's "on the fence" (read: against) the so-called nuclear option. You know, on the subject, someone should give Trent Lott a good swift kick in the ass for calling it the nuclear option in the first place. I'm in PR. First frickin' rule of PR? Control the language. Trent Lott coined a term that the Democrats are using to scare the living hell out of everyone and control the debate.

Idiot.

Anyway, here is a breakdown of the statistics involved on judicial nominees. Bush has had only 51% of his nominees approved. Compare that with 71% for Clinton, 77% for GHWB and 91% for Carter.

This is a battle that is long overdue. The conventional wisdom is that if Frist doesn't do this, he'll lose any chance he had of winning the nomination in 2008. As far as I'm concerned, he's already lost my vote. Right now, we're in a war. That requires leadership and toughness. Frist has already shown he doesn't have the capacity for either.

Both your Senators are liberal RINOs; the last thing they'll want to do is help the GOP. I can see them coming on board only if it's clear we'll win without them.

Both your Senators are liberal RINOs; the last thing they'll want to do is help the GOP. I can see them coming on board only if it's clear we'll win without them.

Yeah, don't I know it. I think Snowe may be in trouble this year, though. She's tried to play both sides of the aisle for too long and it may be catching up with her. There are a lot of Democrats mad that she supported the president and local Republican candidates (sort of) , and a lot of Republicans mad for obvious reasons.

The Republican party in Maine is pretty useless overall, though, but some of us are trying to change that. In 2008? Three words: State Representative Slublog...

About damn time. And speaking of about damn time, it's time for some vacancies to open up on the SC. And that will create a Senate bloodbath like no other.....so we better get this "nuclear option" out there now and be prepared

Amen on the name, Slublog. "Nuclear option" is the stupidest name I've heard for a good procedural reform in a long, long time.

I'd like to see Bush win this battle, but a loss would still have its upsides. If Frist fails to get this through, not only is he finished as a candidate in '08, I can't really see him surviving as Majority Leader past '06. Likewise, McCain is eliminating himself as a candidate one step at a time.

McCain, Snowe, and others are advocating a policy of civility that has gained absolutely nothing. The Democrats went nuclear long before the Republicans; if we want more bipartisan cooperation in Congress then they're going to have to learn that going nuclear was a really bad idea.

The Democrats are throwing the longest temper tantrum in the history of politics. They need to be spanked and sent to the corner.

This republic was founded on the principle of majority rule. If the Democrats don't have the votes to stop these nominees, then fuck 'em. That's why we have elections.

Turn the key, baby. Turn the key.

Ummm, the nuclear option bugs me for the same reason it bugs McCain. Any power you give to the GOP will be given to the Dems.

The only thing bothering McCain is how he can possibly suck up to his number one constituency, the mainstream media, even more than he has for the last decade.

He is a phony phuck and based on Campaign Finance Reform alone he will never get my vote, regardless which party gives him the nomination. Straight talk my ass!

With judicial filibusters, a forty percent minority can veto the choice of an elected President and prevent confirmation by an elected Senate. It's anti-democratic and anti-Constitutional.

McCain's lament is nonsense. If the roles were reversed, Democrats would not hesitate to change Senate procedures - to the universal acclamation of the MSM - which is why past Republican minorities never filibustered judicial nominees. The rule change will be prompted by the Democrats' abuse of Senate procedure.

Incidentally, I don't think McCain was serious. For political reasons, Republicans have pretended they didn't have the votes. McCain was helping to perpetuate an illusion. It's not about spine, it's about timing, and the time has come.

What's to stop the Republicans from changing the rule back once they've gotten what they want. Its a rule, not Holy Writ.
When the Democrats were in the majority they fully exercised their power. It'd be nice if the Republicans did the same.

With judicial filibusters, a forty percent minority can veto the choice of an elected President and prevent confirmation by an elected Senate. It's anti-democratic and anti-Constitutional.

Amen, Lyle. This is the only argument Republicans should be making. They need to stay on this point and not be distracted.

What are the chances that the feckless leaders in the Republican party will start making that argument, though? Our PR is crap.

A lot of the Democrats' discourse, on this and other issues, has been downright Orwellian. It's ridiculous for them to pretend that they're protecting our Constitutional heritage through obstructionist shenanigans. Did either party refuse to report a president's judicial nominees out of committee before Bush 41?

Sure, it doesn't help that the MSM is ready to assist the Dems in dressing up this crap sandwich as a wholesome meal, but Slublog is right: Republican PR is just pitiful.

Pat Buchanan was hosting Scarborough Country last night and covered this very topic. The bullshit he was letting the Democratic spin artists get away with was outrageous.

I finally had to turn the damn thing off because I was screaming at my television while the dog cowered in the corner.

I agree with previous posters who argue that Republicans are a bunch of pussies.

'Cept for Bush. He's a lot like Reagan in that he simply tunes out the white noise and plows ahead.

That's the only way to do it. Sucking up to Democrats and the media is only going to get you stabbed in the back. Ask George "Read my Lips" Sr.

I'm so fired up y'all are pretty much for this and not for wimping out.

I'm so f'in into you guys.

PS If we had thrown out Specter when we had the chance I don't think we'd be all worried about this today.

Heck, in the spirit of being really pissed off about this, here are some talking points Bill Frist could use, if he weren't cowering in fear of Harry Reid.

First, Democratic obstructionism has led to an unprecedented crisis in the federal judiciary. Twelve percent of the seats in the judicary are now vacant and cases are not being heard. Democrats are delaying justice.

Second, President Bush has had an appallingly low number of his judicial nominees confirmed at 51%. Clinton had 71%, GHWB had 77%, Reagan had 81%, Carter had 91%, Nixon/Ford had 89%, Kennedy/Johnson had 89%, Eisenhower had 90% and Truman had 81%.

Third, President Bush won a majority of the popular vote - over 62 million Americans voted for this president and his agenda. The wishes of 62 million Americans is being thwarted by the obstructionism of 45.

Fourth, this is unconstitutional. The constitution only gives the Senate advise and consent power. A two-thirds majority is not required.

Those are just a few of the facts that should be quoted often and with great passion. And it took me ten freaking minutes to come up with them. I cannot believe Wimpy Frist is only now beginning to marshall arguments against the filibusters.

How could the Republicans be losing the PR war to Harry FussAss Reid and Nancy HowlerMonkey Pelosi? The Dems have screech-whined their way through this session of Congress, while Frist just made fish-face and whimpered like a spineless wussy? I keep hoping the Republicans are leading up to a delicious money shot where Frist -- newly empowered by months of Democratic caterwauling -- hauls off and slaps the crap out of Reid.

You know who's maybe wrong on some stuff but making a lot of sense on this issue?

April, that's who. You go, girl.

I'm so f'in into you guys.

Group hug!

Oh, sorry about that. Got caught up in the moment.

This is just making me frickin' crazy.

"That's pussy-talk. Push your advantage when you have it. You may never have it again"

Ace, it's sometimes still a cost benefit of short term advantage v. long term gain.

In this case, the ability to place justices on the Supreme Court is worth the long term risks.

If it was just about some District Court and Appeals slots, that might be different.

It's been proven in the past that, as long as the people have a right to own a gun, the Supreme Court will leave it alone.

For example, you can own a gun, so long as it's not fully-automatic (I know about the special licenses, I’m just talking about your average Joe here).

So my concern is that while it may be easier for us to get more conservative judges in, we will pay for that in terms of tighter gun legislation. Which is a price that I'm not willing to pay.

The day I'm worried about is the day that semi-automatic rifles are banned. The Supreme Court won't be able to do a thing, because we'll still be able to own bolt or lever action rifles.

In terms of the Second Amendment, the filibuster is a much more valuable tool than the Supreme Court. After all, there has to be a law made for it to go to the Supreme Court.

Oh, and close, I'm a fucking IT guy.

Great blog! Really interesting stuff! If the Dems return to power and it serves their interests they'll nuke the filibuster faster than you can say "cross-burning party at Robert Byrd's house"!

Fuck 'em hard! And fuck 'em deep with natural male enhancement! Just one pill a day for a whole new you!

Stupid spambots.

BRING. IT. ON.

In terms of the Second Amendment, the filibuster is a much more valuable tool than the Supreme Court

Never trade tactics for strategery and lose the war to win a battle.

"I will vote against the nuclear option . . . because we won't always be in the majority."

I thought that way a long time. But I'll bet my cohones that no matter what the Republicans do, the Democrats will do it the nanosecond that they can. The only things not doing it accomplishes are: stalled nominations and robbing them of a good excuse when they use it in the future.

I say, send "Jimmie" to Congress! Now!